Skip to main content

Full text of "Minutes"

See other formats


DOCUMF\- DEPARTMENT 




San Francisco Public Library 



Sji floor 



REFERENCE BOOK 

Not to be taken from the Library 



PtB i 6 »'J<: 



3 1223 06010 6367 




City and County of £an Francisco 

Meeting Minutes 

Finance and Labor Committee 

Members: Supervisors Leland Yee, Sue Merman, Tom Ammiano 
Clerk: Mary Red 



JWU;- 



City Hall 

1 Dr. Carlton B. 

Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, CA 

94102-4689 



Wednesday, March 01, 2000 



10:00 AM 
Regular Meeting 



City Hall, Room 263 



Members Present: Leland Y. Yee, Tom Ammiano. 
Members Absent: Sue Bierman. 



Meeting Convened 

The meeting convened at 10: 10 a.m. 

000087 [CEQA Findings - San Bruno Jail No. 3 Replacement Project) 

Resolution endorsing the Planning Commission's certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and 
adopting environmental findings (and a statement of overriding considerations) pursuant to the California 
Environmental Quality Act and State Guidelines in connection with the approval of a design-build finance 
contract and various other approvals related to the County Jail No. 3 replacement project. (Sheriff) 

(Fiscal impact; Environmental Impact Report Addendum dated January 3, 2000; draft EIR published February 

28, 1998; companion measure to File 000088.) 

1/12/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

2/23/00, CONTINUED. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Micheal Hennessey, ShenfT; Mark Primeau, Director, Department of Public 

Works; Supervisor Yee; Ken Bruce, Budget Analyst's Office; Joanne Hoeper, Deputy City Attorney; Monique Moyer, Mayor's Office of 

Public Finance; Jim Ruane, City Councilman, San Bruno, CA., Chuck Zelnik; Carol Livingood; Annette Jacobs; Supervisor Bierman. 

Continued to March 1 , 2000. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Ken Bruce, Budget Analyst's Office; Monique Moyer. Mayor's Office of 
Public Finance: Mark Primeau. Director. Department of Public Works; Michael Hennessey. Sheriff; 
Supervisor Yee; Supennsor Ammiano. Opposed: Richard Handlen. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
WAR - 3 2m 

SAN FRANCISCO 
P UBLIC LIBRARY 



City and County of San Francisco 



Primed at .»:•*/ /Ml on 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



Wart /i /, 2000 



000088 ICounty Jail No. 3 Replacement Project| 

Ordinance authorizing the Sheriffs Department, the Department of Public Works, the City Architect, th 
Attorney's Office and the Mayor's Office of Public Finance to negotiate and enter into a design-build finance 
contract with Prison Realty Trust for the County Jail No. 3 replacement project. (Sheriff) 

(Fiscal impact; Companion measure to File 000087) 

1/12/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and I ibor c ommittee 

2/23/00, CONTINUED Heard in Committee Speaker:, Micheal Hennessey, Sheriff; Mark Primeau, Director. Department ol Public 

Works, Supervisor Yee. Ken Bruce, Budget Analyst's Office; Joanne Hoc per. Deputy ( ity Attorney Monique Mover Ms 

Public Finance. Jim Ruanc. City Councilman, San Bruno. CA , Chuck /elnik. Carol I mngood. Annette Jacobs, Supervisor Bierman 

Continued to March I, 2000. 

Heard in Committee Speakers: Ken Bruce. Budget Analyst's Office. Monique Miner. Mayor's Office of 

Public Finance; Mark Primeau. Director. Department of Public Works; Michael Hennessi . 

Supervisor Yee; Supervisor Ammiano. Opposed Richard Handlen 

AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW TITLE. 

Ordinance authorizing the Sheriffs Department, the Department of Public Works, the City Architect, the On 

Attorney's Office and the Mayor's Office of Public Finance to negotiate a design-build contract with Prison 

Realty Trust for the County Jail No. 3 replacement project; subject to further Board of Supervisors approval. 

(Sheriff) 

(Fiscal impact; Companion measure to File 000087) 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 
Absent: 1 - Bierman 



000242 (Appropriating funds to Gay and Lesbian Historical Society] 
Supervisors Leno, Katz. Ammiano. Bierman 

Ordinance appropriating $60,000 of General Fund Reserve for a one-time grant to the Gay and Lesbian 
Historical Society of Northern California, through the Mayor's Office, for fiscal year 1999-2000. 
2/7/00. RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and labor Committee 
Continued to March 8. 2000. 
CONTINUED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



000271 (Appropriating S508.000. Trial Court, to pay for increased costs of indigent defense in adult criminal 
and juvenile delinquency cases] 

Ordinance appropriating S558.000 from the General Fund Reserve to fund the increased costs of indigent 
defense in adult criminal and juvenile delinquency cases for the Trial Court for fiscal year 1999-2000. 
providing for ratification of action previously taken. (Controller) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

2/9/00. RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Ken Bruce. Budget Analyst Alan Carlson. Chief Executive Officer. Trial 

Courts; Supervisor Yee. The question was divided concerning $50,000 for increase in hourly rate for 

investigators , see File 000383 . 

DIVIDED. 



City- and County of San Francisco 



Primed <u 3:41 PM on 3/lAKt 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



March 1, 2000 



Ordinance appropriating $508,000 from the General Fund Reserve to fund the increased costs of indigent 
defense in adult criminal and juvenile delinquency cases for the trial court for Fiscal Year 1999-2000, 
providing for ratification of action previously taken, placing $254,000 on reserve. (Controller) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

Amended to place $254,000 on resen>e. 

RECOMMENDED AS DIVIDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 
Absent: 1 - Bierman 



000383 [Appropriating $50,000, Trial Court, to pay increase in hourly rate for private investigators! 

Ordinance appropriating $50,000 from the General Fund Reserve to fund an increase in the hourly rate for 
private investigators working through the court's Indigent Defense Program, providing for ratification of action 
previously taken, for Fiscal Year 1999-2000. (Controller) 

(Fiscal Impact) 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Ken Bruce, Budget Analyst; Alan Carlson, Chief Executive Officer, Trial 

Courts; Supervisor Yee. Divided from File 00027 J. 

DIVIDED. 

CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 
Absent: 1 - Bierman 



000272 [Appropriating $600,000 for the clean-up project to remove 2,000 tons of contaminated debris from the 
17 acres of PUC-VVater Department bayside property leased to Peninsula Sportman's Club) 

Ordinance appropriating $600,000 of Water Fund balance to fund initial clean-up activities of San Francisco 
Public Utilities Commission Bayside property located west of the Dumbarton Bridge, for fiscal year 1999- 
2000. (Controller) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

2/9/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Ken Bruce, Budget Analyst's Office; Steve Medberry, Public Utilities 

Commission; Rona Sandler, Deputy City Attorney; Ted Lakey; Deputy City Attorney; Supervisor Yee. 

Amended to place $505,368 on reserve. 

AMENDED. 

Ordinance appropriating $600,000 of Water Fund balance to fund initial clean-up activities of San Francisco 

Public Utilities Commission Bayside property located west of the Dumbarton Bridge, for fiscal year 1999- 

2000; placing $505,368 on reserve. (Controller) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 
Absent: 1 - Bierman 



City and County of San Francisco 



Primed at 3:41 rU on I .' N 

4 4760 

I PL 02/1'. 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



\lanh I, 20ttO 



000273 [Appropriating $507,025 for the 1999-2000 Joint Powers Board C altrain Capital Plan| 

Ordinance appropriating $507,025 to General City Responsibility, payments to other governments, and 
rescinding $507,025 from lease-purchase, to provide funds for San Francisco's share of the capital 
improvement budget at the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, for fiscal year 1999-2000. (Controller) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

2/9/00. RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance ami I abor ( ommmee 

Heard in Committee Speakers Ken Bruce. Budget Analyst. Matlicu Hvmel Mayor's Office of Finance 

RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee. Ammiano 
Absent: 1 - Bierman 



000244 [Appropriating $1,788,089, Department of Elections, to off-set cost of 1999 December run-ofr. and to 
update voter files| 
Supervisors Newsom, Bierman 

Ordinance appropriating $2,300,097 ($2,1 18,610 from the General Fund Reserve and S181.487 from various 
governmental revenues) for salaries, fringe benefits, other current expenses, materials and supplies, and 
equipment for the Department of Elections for fiscal year 1999-2000. (Controller) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

2/7/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

Heard in Committee Speakers Ken Bruce Budget Analyst's Office. Vaomi Nishioka, Department oj 
Elections. Supervisor Yee, Ed Harrington. Controller, Supervisor Newsom. The question was divided 
concerning $502,008 for new vote st anning system . See File 000384 . 
DIVIDED. 

Ordinance appropriating SI. 788,089 ($1,606,602 from the General 1-und Reserve Jtid $181,487 from various 
governmental revenues) for salaries, fringe benefits, other current expenses, materials and supplies, and 
equipment for the Department of Elections for Fiscal Year 1999-2000. (Controller) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

Amended to reduce by SI 0,000, as Department of Elections will not need to enter into contract with a phone 
bank service company for the March 7. 2000 election. 
RECOMMENDED AS DIV IDED by the following Note: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee. Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



000384 (Appropriating S502.008. Department of Elections, for new Vote Scanning System| 

Ordinance appropriating $502,008 from the General Fund Reserve for temporary salaries, minor furnishings 
and equipment, for the new Vote Scanning System at the Department of Elections, for Fiscal Year 1999-2000. 
(Controller) 

(Fiscal Impact) 

Heard in Committee Speakers Ken Bruce. Budget Analyst's Office: Naomi Xishioka, Department of 
Elections; Supervisor Yee; Ed Harrington. Controller; Supervisor Newsom. Divided from File 000244 
DIVIDED. 

Continued to March 8, 2000. 
CONTINUED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



City and County of San Francisco 



Primed at 3:41 PM on iZVO 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



March 1, 2000 



000235 [Approving the concession leases of Travelex America, Inc. to operate two (2) ATM facilities at the 
Airport, at a minimum annual rent for the first year of $240,500 for each lease] 

Resolution approving two Automated Teller Machine Leases for the existing and New International Terminal 

Buildings between Travelex America, Inc. and the City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through its 

Airport Commission. (Airport Commission) 

2/4/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

Continued to March 8, 2000. 

CONTINUED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



000236 [Approving the concession lease of Travelex America, Inc. to operate a foreign currency exchange office 
at the Airport, at a minimum annual rent for the first year of $4,127,500) 

Resolution approving the Foreign Currency Exchange Lease in the Existing and New International Terminal 

Buildings between Travelex America, Inc. and the City and County of San Francisco, actmg by and through its 

Airport Commission. (Airport Commission) 

2/4/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

Continued to March 8, 2000. 

CONTINUED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Ammiano, Yee 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



000268 [Approving the concession lease of Host International, Inc. for a specialty store and newsstand located at 
the North Terminal Hub of the Airport, at a minimum annual rent for the first year of $2,550,000] 

Resolution approving the North Terminal Hub Prmcipal Retail Concession lease between Host International, 

Inc. and the City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through its Airport Commission. (Airport 

Commission) 

2/8/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Ken Bruce, Budget Analyst's Office; Jon Ballesteros. Airport Commission; 

Supervisor Ammiano; Ted Lakey. Deputy City Attorney. Continued to March 8, 2000. 

CONTINUED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



000275 [Establishing monthly contribution to Health Service Trust Fund by City and County, Unified School 
District, and Community College District for fiscal year 2000-2001 1 

Resolution establishing monthly contribution amount to Health Service Trust Fund. (Department of Human 

Resources) 

2/9/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Ken Bruce, Budget Analyst; Bart Duncan. Acting Deputy Director, Health 

Service System; Supervisor Yee. 

RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



City and County of San Francisco 



Primed at 3:41 PM 



Finance and Labor Committee Meeting Minutes March 1.2000 

ADJOURNMENT 

The meeting adjourned at 1151 a.m 



City- and County of San Francisco 6 Printed at 3:41 P\f on ] 2 00 



t ^rd x^hi^. Government Documents Section 

/t*' 7~~ v so\ Main I ihrorw 



CITY AND COUNTY SWJtSHL/S OF S.A 



././ 




Susan Horn 

Government 
Main Library 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 
FAX (415) 252-0461 



February 24, 2000 
TO: .Finance and Labor Committee 

FROM: ^Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 
Items 1 and 2 - Files 00-0088 and 00-0067 

Note: This proposed ordinance and proposed resolution were continued from the 
February 23, Finance and Labor Committee meeting. 

Departments: Sheriff 

Department of Public Works (DPW) 

City Architect 

Mayor's Office of Public Finance (MOPF) 

Planning 

Item: File 00-0088: Ordinance authorizing the Sheriffs Department, 

the Department of Public Works, the City Architect, the City 
Attorney's Office and the Mayor's Office of Public Finance to 
negotiate and enter into a design-build/finance contract with Prison 
Realty Trust for the County Jail No. 3 Replacement Project. 

File 00-0087: Resolution endorsing the Planning Commission's 
certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and 
adopting environmental findings pursuant to the California 
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in connection with the approval 
of a design-build/finance contract for the County Jail No. 3 
Replacement Project. 

DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

FEB 2 9 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Me raq L tpJ?j& w^Gplftjiutteel ' 
>c]/\ 9 ,.(iMa^h^V2^^Fciai«i$cerCHn|ioy!ttee Meeting 



Description: 



Background 



*•/-<♦ ■ '*• 



, tj ; 



i ] .; n 1,11 jd * n ^ a y °^ 1991, an action was filed against the City (Jones v. ~ 
[jBVoiqqB and County of San Francisco et al.) challenging that the conditi< 

at County Jail No. 3 in San Bruno were in violation of 

• w , or.-/ "lOjrwi rtl .Si constitutional requirements. The United States District Cqur.t 

:: fi i ; ,i ; ." ft i,i(j to f ; ;jr.c", concluded in 1997 that the Jail violated the United States 

Constitution. The District Court specifically found that the existing 

. rrv'J ,,fi fJ-tr i, jffg+araaoO" Jail posed health, fire safety and seismic risks. After several years' ■ 

» r >m ' • " arfj rnubnohbA of litigation, a settlement agreement was reached that resulted in 

:; , i -^r-,.-s ^^ oorrsnfl ffrw dismissal of the plaintiffs action, so long as certain conditions kre 

:•.;•■' '.[?.':& '^-^ te™ tomrtnoo met by the City. These conditions include (a) the construction ofia 

!'•!■■■ ■'* •' *< r - .^O. [KKLSiJJS new jail facility: (h) the continuance of certain improvements made' 

?»rf' '7J 1 o? ^'rhT? .y.nD t0 County Jail No. 3 between July. 1997 and the present; and 
-' t " nort; r ora?h >d?_3ntjbif box improvements in the condin unty Jail No. 3 on an interim. ; 

i V! :>- ■( •if.! J -• ■ [)'):t-i6n sd oJbasis, pending completion of a proposed new jail facility. The 

settlement agreement was approved by the Board of Supervisors in 
grnrmO rftiw eonFbionfi nT .8 April f 1999 The City Attorney advised the Board of Supervisors onH / 
i1 RonRnrbTO b9eoqoiq erft a t that time that, if the City decided not to proceed with fhe" I ' 
can Ijjqinnhq rnuauxErn Bril as construction of a new jail, the proposed settlement agreem>BT- 
.I09(xnq od^wouid De sel aside and the lawsuit would proceed. 

to IfivoiqqA "County Jail No. 3. located in San Bruno. San Mateo County, opened 
r 'qcnq srfl 'io in 1932. Jail No. 3 housed a total capacity of 750 inmates until. 

?io?.rvi3an2 under the settlement agreement described above, the jail 
population was limited to no more than 551 inmates (the facility's 
original design capacity 1 at any one time in order to reduce 
overcrowding. Presently Jail No. 3 operates at the 551 inmate 
capacity allowed under the settlement agreement. 

There have been two attempts to obtain voter approval for a 
General Obligation Bond issuance to fund a Jail No. 3 Replacement 
Project. In 1992, Proposition B proposed a 5158,100.000 General 
Obligation Bond issuance for the Jail No. 3 Replacement Project. 
The proposition failed as it required a two-thirds vote for approval 
and only received affirmative votes of 57.2 percent. In 1994. 
Proposition A. requesting voter approval for a General Obligation 
Bond issuance of S 196.000,000 also failed after receiving 54 percent 
of the votes. 



! <-. .;ig Board of Supervisors 

aocua Budget Analyst 

I 2 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 1, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting 



Selection of Proposed Contractor and Project Description 

Attachment 1 to this report is a letter from Mr. Mark Primeau, 
Director of the DPW explaining the selection process for the 
proposed design-build/finance project contractor, Prison Realty 
Trust. 

As stated in Attachment 1, the Department of Public Works issued 
a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for the design-build/finance Jail 
No. 3 Replacement Project in February, 1997. Five respondents to 
the RFQ were "shortlisted" by an evaluation team consisting of 
DPW and Sheriffs Department staff on the basis of their 
qualifications and all five teams were approved by the Human 
Rights Commission. 

A Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued in August, 1998 to the 
five firms found to be qualified by the RFQ process. Two proposals 
were received; one from Turner Construction Management 
Company, Inc. and a second from a team lead by Prison Realty 
Trust (PRT) as developer, and including Morris Diesel 
International Inc. (general contractor) and Kaplan McLaughlin 
Diaz (architects). Two selection panels were convened, the first to 
evaluate Technical/Administrative requirements including site, 
landscape, building design, project schedule, quality control 
program and MBEAVBE utilization. The second selection panel 
evaluated proposed project costs, lease costs and other factors 
related to financial risk or cost to the City. The selection panel that 
evaluated Technical/Administrative requirements was comprised of 
a DPW representative, a Sheriffs Department representative, and 
three outside experts in the design/construction field, according to 
Mr. Primeau. The selection panel evaluating proposed project costs 
was comprised of the Mayor's Director of Public Finance, two 
Deputy City Attorneys and two partners from the City's 
independent Financial Advisor for the Jail No. 3 Replacement 
Project (the firm of Stephens, McCarthy, Kuenzel and Caldwell, 
Ltd.). 

The team lead by PRT received the highest total scores from 10 out 
of the 11 panelists on the two selection panels. The costs of the two 
proposals were $185,000,000 for the Turner Construction 
Management Company proposal and $158,500,000 for the PRT 
proposal. 



Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

3 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 1, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting 



After selection of the PRT team, negotiations began between the 
contractor PRT and the City represented by the Sheriff, DPVV, 
MOPF, the City Architect and the City Attorney. The initial project 
scope called for over 400,000 square feet of construction including a 
286,000 square foot jail housing building, and a 106,000 square foot 
Administrative/Services building. As noted above, the low bid of 
$158,500,000 in response to the initial Jail No. 3 Replacement 
project RFP was submitted by PRT. 

The Sheriff. DPVV and MOPF determined that both proposals 
submitted for the proposed facility were too costly, and DPVV and 
the City Architect entered into negotiations with PRT to reduce the 
scope and price of the project. The reduced scope project now 
provides for approximately '286,000 square feet of construction 
including a 207,000 square foot jail housing building, and a 62,000 
square foot A dminis trative/Services building. Both the original 
project design and the reduced scope project design provide for a 
total of 384 two-inmate cells for a total prisoner capacity of 768 
compared to the existing maximum capacity of -Jail No. 3 of 750 and 
the capacity permitted under the settlement agreement approved 
by the Board of Supervisors in April of 1999 of 551. With these 
changes, the reduced scope project has been estimated to require a 
construction contract price of $115,000,000. which is $43,500,000 or 
27.4 percent less than the low hid of $158,500,000. 

Terms of the Proposed Ordinance 

The proposed ordinance would authorize the City Attorney, City 
Architect. Mayor's Office of Public Finance, Sheriffs Department 
and DPVV to complete negotiations with PRT and DPVV would be 
authorized to enter into a negotiated contract with PRT, or its 
successor company by merger or acquisition, for the design- 
build/finance of the Jail No. 3 Replacement Project substantially in 
accordance with the following ten 

a. the total project cost of the contract with PRT for the design- 
build portion of the project would not exceed $115,000,000; the 
City's iii-house expenses for project management, construction 
management, support services and contract expenditures for 
demolition of the existing Jail would not exceed $17,200,000. 
Therefore, the total PRT and Cifr for the Jail No. 3 



1 If PRT's ownership is changed because of merger or acquisition, the successor company would not 
be subject to separate legislative approval by the Board of Supervisors (See Comment 2). 

Board of Supervisors 

Bloc. ft Analyst 
4 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 1, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting 



Replacement Project would not exceed $132,200,000. The 
proposed total project cost would be subject to change as 
described below. Attachment 2 to this report, supplied by Mr. 
Primeau, provides supporting detail for the PRT project cost of 
$115,000,000 and Attachment 3 provides supporting detail for 
the City's project costs of $17,200,000. According to Ms. Moyer, 
all funding for the total project cost of $132,200,000 will be 
provided by proceeds from the issuance of Certificates of 
Participation (COPs) as described below. 

b. All construction contracts costing $500,000 or more, including at 
least 80% of all labor, equipment, material, and supply 
subcontract costs, would be competitively bid to at least three 
qualified bidders for each subcontract bid package. Subcontracts 
would be awarded by PRT with the review and approval of the 
City (represented by the DPW project manager) based on a 
weighted scale of cost, achievement of Human Rights 
Commission goals and workforce availability. 

The total Project Cost would be adjusted by the amount, if any, 
that the subcontract bids differ from the estimates upon which 
the proposed cost of $115,000,000 is based. An amendment to 
the proposed ordinance submitted by the Director of Public 
Works at the February 23, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee 
meeting stipulates that the $115,000,000 Project Cost is now 
defined as a "not-to-exceed" amount. (See Comment 3.) 

c. PRT would be responsible for providing all design and 
construction services necessary for receipt of an occupancy 
permit for a facility meeting or exceeding all design and 
specification requirements, all industry standards and all 
applicable codes and regulations. 

The Project would be required to meet the program needs 
identified by the Sheriff and -agreed upon between the two 
parties, including but not limited to the following: 

• 384 cells each accommodating two prisoners, 

• kitchen and eating facilities, 

• medical and administration facilities and support services. 

• PRT would provide all design consultants necessary for the 
design and construction and administration services through 
permitted occupancy and final project closeout. DPW would 
reserve the right to provide design or construction services 

Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

5 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 1, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting 



through its own forces, in which case there would be an 
equitable reduction in fees paid to PRT for the project in order 
to reduce the total project costs to the City. 

d. The proposed cost of $115,000,000 for the design-build portion of 
the project includes estimated amounts to be paid by PRT to its 
general contractor and design team, which amount would be 
adjusted after actual bids have been received on the 
subcontractor bid packages. The amount to be paid by PRT to its 
general contractor for supervision, overhead and profit, and to 
its architect for all design services as described herein, 
collectively, would be no more than 25% of the actual cost of 
construction of the Project. The total cost for the design-build 
portion of the Project would be adjusted accordingly from the 
proposed cost of $115,000,000. 

e. PRT would produce a bid package schedule which minimizes the 
construction duration. It is estimated that construction would 
begin upon the issuance of a notice to proceed by the DPW and 
the facility would become operational in approximately 38 
months. 

f. PRT would, at the City's discretion, re-design and re-bid 
subcontractor bid packages if the low bid for any subcontractor 
bid package exceeds the budgeted amount. The cost of re-design 
would be paid 50% by PRT and 50% from the re-designed bid 
package price. 

g. PRT would assume responsibility for all change orders which do 
not arise from DPW requested changes to the Project's program. 

h. PRT would assume responsibility for on-budget, on-schedule 
delivery of the Project regardless of its contractual agreements 
with parties other than the City. The Project would be 
completed within 38 months after the City issues the Project's 
notice to proceed. 

PRT would assist the City in issuing Certificates Of 
Participation (COPs) to finance the costs of the Project, subject 
to separate Board of Supervisors approval. The proposed 
ordinance states that the maximum principal amount of COPs 
to finance the costs of the project is not expected to exceed 
$166,000,000. However. Ms. Mover states that the current 
estimated COPs issuance principal amount is now $177,195,000 
(See Project Financing, described below). COPs proceeds would 
Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 
6 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 1, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting 



finance the contract with PRT that is the subject of this 
ordinance, as well as the demolition of the existing Jail, which is 
contemplated to be carried out later under a separate contract. 
(Demolition of the existing Jail, at an estimated cost of 
$3,250,000 is part of the City's anticipated Project cost of 
$17,200,000. See Comment 5.) 

If the City Architect and Director of DPW determined that they 
are unable successfully to conclude negotiations with PRT on 
terms that are in the best interest of the City, then the City 
Architect and Director of DPW are authorized to terminate 
negotiations with PRT and to enter into negotiations with the 
second-ranked proposer (Turner Construction Management 
Company) for a contract in substantial conformance with the 
provisions set forth herein. If such negotiations are not fruitful, 
then the City Architect and the Director of DPW are authorized 
to terminate negotiations with the second-ranked proposer and 
enter into negotiations with any other party whom they 
determine would offer the City the best opportunity to 
successfully negotiate a contract in substantial conformance 
with the provisions set forth herein (See Comment 6). 

According to the proposed ordinance, the competitive bidding 
requirements and design-build procedural requirements of 
Administrative Code Chapter 6 shall not apply to this Project, 
and any requirement for the City to accept a substitute in place 
of specified material and/or equipment is waived. (See Comment 
4 below). The proposed ordinance also states that art 
enrichment allocation requirement of the Administrative Code 
Chapter 3 does not apply to this project. 

Final Environmental Impact Report 

A Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the Jail No. 3 
Replacement project was approved by the Planning Commission in 
July of 1998. 

The FEIR as approved by the Planning Commission requires 
measures to mitigate significant effects on the environment. Such 
mitigation measures fall within the categories of transportation 
(traffic control), noise, air quality, utilities and public services, ' 
biological resources, hydrology and water quality, hazardous 
materials and cultural resources. Most requirements of the 
mitigation measures would be met by the proposed construction 

Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 1, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting 



contractor within the proposed PRT cost of $115,000,000. DPW 
would be responsible for some requirements of the mitigation 
measures, as would the Sheriffs Department. The costs of meeting 
such mitigation measures during the proposed construction project 
would be paid from the City's $17,200,000 portion of the project as 
outlined in Attachment 3. Such costs include: 

Site hazardous materials and 

environmental issues monitoring $1,831,363 

Demolition hazardous materials mitigation 1,500,000 

Sheriffs Department costs 2 250.000 

Total Mitigation Measures $3,581,363 

Project Financing 

As noted previously, the anticipated total project cost for the Jail 
No. 3 Replacement Project, including $115,000,000 for the PRT 
contract and $17,200,000 for City costs, is $132,200,000 
previously noted, all project costs will be funded from the net 
proceeds of an issuance of Certificates of Participation (COPs) in 
the anticipated amount of $177,195,000 (the current estimate, 
which is $11,195,000 more than the $166,000,000 COPs principal 
amount specified in the proposed ordinance). 

The use of Certificates of Participation (COPs) is a method of 
financing that provides long term funding through a lease or 
installment sales agreement. COPs represent proportionate 
interests in the lease of the Jail No. 3 Replacement Project 
property, which are sold to investors. The investors would receive a 
return on their investment through annual lease payments made 
by the City for the land and building. The City would assign its 
rights to purchase the land, together with the building thereon, to a 
financial institution, as trustee, and lease the land and building 
back from the financial institution at an annual amount sufficient 
to service the debt on the COPs purchased by the investors. At the 
end of the term (currently anticipated to be 30 years), the trustee 
would transfer fee title to the land and building back to the City. 

The COPs method of financing is proposed because previous 
attempts to achieve voter approval of General Obligation Bonds to 
finance the Jail No. 3 Replacement Project in 1992 and 1994 have 



2 Sheriffs costs include community notification, additional security, vehicle and traffic control, and 
emergency coordination and response plans. 

Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

8 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 1, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting 



failed. COPs financing is a less economical method of financing 
compared to the use of General Obligation Bonds. Interest rates are 
higher for COPs than General Obligation Bonds, resulting in higher 
debt service requirements. Also, because the City is forbidden by 
law from paying lease payments prior to completion of the 
construction project for Jail No. 3, capitalized interest payments on 
the COPs during the period of construction requires a larger debt 
issuance than would be necessary with General Obligation Bonds. 

Based on an anticipated interest rates of 6.6 percent for a General 
Obligation Bond and anticipated interest rates of 7 percent for a 
COP issuance, the Mayor's Office of Public Finance estimates that 
the cost of this project will be $190,611,785 more using the COPs 
than if General Obligation Bonds were available to finance the 
Project 3 . This difference in total cost is due to the higher interest 
rates for COPs and the need to fund capitalized interest costs 
during the period of construction using COPs financing instead of a 
General Obligation Bond financing. 

Ms. Moyer provides the following current estimate of sources and 
uses for the funding of the proposed project and related financing 
costs. 

Sources of Funds 

Certificates of Participation Proceeds $ 177,195,000 

Interest earnings 13.906.133 

Total Sources $191,101,133 

Uses of Funds 

COPs issuance costs $ 6,342,094 

Bond Insurance 3,489,791 

Capitalized Interest 4 34,784,555 

Debt Service Reserve Fund , 14,284,693 

PRT Contract 115,000,000 

City Project Costs 17.200.000 

Total Uses $ 191,101,133 



3 The estimate for a comparable General Obligation Bond financing assumes a par amount of $129.8 
million at 6.6 percent, an average annual payment of $10,341,723 (including use of a debt service 
reserve for the final payments) and gross debt service of $237,859,645 over 23 years. 
1 During the construction of the project, the City cannot make lease payments on the new facility 
until the City has beneficial use of the new Jail. Therefore, interest payments during the period of 
construction must be paid from the proceeds of the sale of the COPs. 

Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

9 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 1, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting 

Ms. Moyer estimates that if the COPs were issued today, the 
interest rate on the debt would be six percent. However, Ms. Moyer 
anticipates that interest rates may rise by approximately one 
percent before issuance of the COPs. Based on the assumed 
increase in interest rates to seven percent, the annual lease 
payments by the City to pay debt service on the COPs will be 
approximately $14,282,381 for a period of 30 years for total lease 
payments of $428,471,430. Once the debt has been fuhy repaid by 
the City through its annual lease payments, the City will take full 
ownership of the Jail from PRT. The life expectancy of the new Jail 
facility is expected to be 50 years. 

Lease payments of $14,282,381 annually, totaling $428,471,430 
over the 30 term of the debt, to pay debt service on the COPs will be 
a General Fund expenditure. 

Comments: 1. If this proposed ordinance is approved by the Board of 
Supervisors, Board of Supervisors approval of future legislation will 
be required prior to the actual start-up of the Jail No. 3 
Replacement Project. First, legislation authorizing the issuance of 
Certificates of Participation in the currently anticipated amount of 
$177,195,000 (subject to negotiation with Bond insurers and 
underwriters, and review by rating agencies) will be submitted to 
the Board of Supervisors. Second, proceeds from the sale of COPs 
will be subject to separate appropriation approval by the Board of 
Supervisors. 

2, As previously mentioned, if PRT's ownership is changed because 
of merger or acquisition, the successor company would not be 
subject to separate legislative approval by the Board of Supervisors. 
Accordingly, and as further explained in Comment 6 below, the 
Budget Analyst recommends that the ordinance be amended so that 
the final negotiated contract with PRT, or its successor company, or 
any other company, be subject to final approval by the Board of 
Supervisors 

3. As noted above, an amendment to the proposed ordinance 
submitted by the Director of Public Works at the February 23, 2000 
Finance and Labor Committee meeting stipulates that the 
$115,000,000 Project Cost is now defined as a "not-to-exceed" 
amount. Therefore, the total Project Cost for construction 
performed by PRT can only decrease, depending on the outcome of 
competitive bids for subcontracts costing $500,000 or more, but 
cannot increase as a result of such competitive bids. 

Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

10 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 1, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting 



4. According to Mr. Randall Parent of the City Attorney's Office, 
the section of the proposed ordinance that waives competitive 
bidding requirements and design-build procedural requirements of 
Administrative Code Chapter 6 is necessary because of the lengthy 
period that has elapsed during negotiations between 
representatives of the City and PRT and, more importantly, the 
significant change in the scope of the work that resulted from the 
negotiations. The RFP sought proposals for a jail project that is 
significantly different from the project now proposed. According to 
Mr. Parent, without this ordinance, the City would need to reject all 
proposals and issue a new RFP in order to comply with the design- 
build requirements of Chapter 6. Mr. Parent adds that it would not 
be in the best interests ot the City to re-bid the project in light of 
the significant amount of work invested in re-designing the project 
and the time pressures facing the City to meet the terms of the 
Jones settlement agreement. Accordingly, the City Attorney has 
advised DPW and the Sheriff to submit this separate ordinance to 
the Board of Supervisors for approval of the process used to 
negotiate this design-build project, which requires waiving the 
competitive bidding requirements and design-build procedural 
requirements of Administrative Code Chapter 6. 

5. As previously mentioned, the proposed ordinance specifies that 
COP proceeds would finance the contract with PRT that is the 
subject of this ordinance, as well as the demolition of the existing 
Jail, which is required to be carried out later under a separate 
contract. However, the COPs proceeds are expected to fund both the 
PRT contract in the anticipated amount of $115,000,000 and all 
City costs in the anticipated amount of $17,200,000, including 
demolition of the existing Jail at a cost of $3,250,000. Therefore the 
proposed ordinance should be amended in accordance with 
Recommendation 2 below so that the proposed ordinance states 
that all project costs will be funded /rom COP proceeds. 



6. Because the Board of Supervisors would not be required to 
approve the final contract for construction of the proposed project 
due to the waiver of Administrative Code Chapter 6, the Budget 
Analyst recommends that the proposed ordinance be amended to 
provide for specific Board of Supervisors approval of the final 
contract agreement with the design-build/finance contractor. 



Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

11 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 1, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting 



7. The Budget Analyst notes that several new County Jails built in 
California have been partially justified by reduced operational costs 
for the new, more efficient facilities, including Los Angeles County, 
San Diego County and Santa Clara County. Also, the Sheriffs 
budget currently includes over $2,800,000 in annual operating 
expenses attributable to the lawsuit against the City and the 
resulting settlement agreement concerning the operation of the 
current Jail No. 3. However, Attachment 4 to this report is a letter 
from Ms. Jean Mariani. Budget and Program Manager of the 
Sheriffs Department that states that the Sheriff anticipates no 
operational savings would be available to offset the estimated 
$14,282,381 in annual lease payments to pay off the COPs for the 
new Jail. According to Ms. Mariani, it is the opinion of the Sheriff 
that the new facility must be operated with substantially the same 
level of staffing as the current Jail No. 3, but that the cost per 
inmate housed in the new facility will decrease because the total 
Jail population capacity will increase from the current level of 551 
inmates to a capacity of 768 inmates. 

8. At the request of the Finance and Labor Committee, the Mayor's 
Director of Public Finance is preparing alternative financing 
scenarios for presentation to the Committee at is meeting of March 
1, 2000. However, as of the writing of this report, the current 
estimate for the maximum principal amount of COPs to finance the 
costs of the project is $177,195,000 instead of $166,000,000 as 
specified in the proposed ordinance. Consequently, the Budget 
Analyst recommends that the proposed ordinance be amended to 
reflect the revised maximum principal amount of the anticipated 
COPs issuance. (See Recommendation 3.) 

9. The Finance and Labor Committee has also requested further 
details on the provisions to be included in the final contract with 
PRT. According to Mr. Primeau. the DPVV intends to include 
appropriate provisions for liquidated damages and penalty clauses 
in order to assure that work will be performed in a timely manner 
according to agreed upon specifications. However, such details have 
not been fully discussed and finalized at this time. 

Mr. Primeau also notes however, that agreement on a guaranteed 
maximum contract cost of $115,000,000 protects the City against 
potential construction cost overruns. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

\-2 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 1, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting 



10. Finally, the Finance and Labor Committee has requested a 
further examination of projected operating costs for the new Jail in 
order to identify potential savings that could contribute to the 
payment of debt service for the construction financing. The Sheriff 
continues to maintain that his projection of operating costs at the 
new facility is substantially the same as current operating costs at 
Jail No. 3. 

The Budget Analyst notes however, that facilities maintenance 
expenditures for Jail No. 3, amounting to $525,000 annually, 
should become minimal once the new Jail is operational. Also, the 
need for staffing will largely depend on the future inmate 
population for the City's jail system as a whole. If, for example, the 
new Jail were to operate with a population of approximately 600 
inmates, or 49 inmates more than the current maximum population 
of 551, the annual operating costs could be reduced by 
approximately $1,100,000 due to reduced staffing requirements 
based on a review of the Sheriffs Department's detailed staffing 
projections. The Sheriff notes however, that currently, between 550 
and 600 sentenced individuals participate in Jail Alternative 
programs. Future changes to court policies or future legislation, 
could decrease that number and therefore increase the number of 
inmates that must be housed. 

The Budget Analyst acknowledges that future Jail operating costs 
will depend on the number of inmates that must be housed as well 
as the operating requirements of a new jail facility. Therefore, a 
detailed, independent review of such operating requirements should 
be performed prior to the completion of the Jail No. 3 Replacement 
Project. 



Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

13 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 1, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting 

Recommendations: 1. In accordance with Comments 2 and 6 above, amend the 
proposed ordinance to require that the final contract agreement for 
the design-build/finance Jail No. 3 Replacement Project, including 
any contact with a successor company to PRT or any other design- 
build contractor, shall be submitted to the Board of Supervisors for 
approval. 

2. In accordance with Comment 5 above, amend Section 3 of the 
contract (page 5, lines 18 through 21) to read as follows: 

"Consistent with the Project analyzed in the FEIR and the 
Addendum, the Board intends that the Certificates of Participation 
will finance the design-build portion of the Project under the 
contract with PRT, for all project costs in the anticipated amount of 
$115.000,000, that is the subject of this ordinance, as well as all 
Citv Project costs in the anticipated amount of $17.200.000 
including the demolition of the existing Jail, which is contemplated 
to be carried out later under a separate contract. 

3. In accordance with Comment 8 above, amend page 5, fine 18 of 
the proposed ordinance to substitute $177,195,000 for $166,000,000 
as the maximum principal amount of COPs to finance the costs of 
the project. 

1 Approval of the proposed ordinance, as amended, and approval 
of the proposed resolution are policy matters for the Board of 
Supervisors. 



Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

14 



City and County of San Francisco 







Attachment 1 
Page 1 ot 3 

(415)554-6920 

FAX (415) 554-6944 

http://www.sfdpw.com 



Willie Lewis Brown, Jr., Mayor 
Mark A. Primeau, Architect, AIA, Director 



Department of Public Works 

Office of the Director 

City Hall. Room 348 

1 Dr. Carlton B. Gcodlett Place 

San Francisco, CA 94102-4645 



February 8. 2000 



Mr. Ken Bruce 
Budget Analyst Office 
1390 Market Street 
San Francisco, CA 

Re: San Bruno County Jail No. 3 Replacement Project 

Dear Mr. Bruce: |C&A/- 

Ken, I am following up on our discussion yesterday regarding information on the Jail project. 
Attached to this memo are cost matrices for (1) MDI project implementation costs totaling SI 15 
million and (2) City project costs totaling SI 7.2 million. 

BACKGROUND 

County Jail No. 3 Replacement Project 

Design Build Finance Team Selection Process 

Phase I: Issuance of the Request for Qualifications and the Selection of a "Shortlist": 

On February 27, 1997, the Department of Public Works issued a Request for Qualifications 
(RFQ) to solicit Design Build Lease teams interested in providing design, construction and 
financing services for a replacement facility for County Jail No. 3 in San Mateo County. This 
RFQ set forth goals for the project and defined the team selection process. General Contractors. 
Architectural or Architectural/Engineering ( AE) firms demonstrating expertise in the design and 
construction of correctional facilities and the ability to meet schedule and budget requirements 
were encouraged to apply. Financing plans were to includes description of the method of 
financing, guarantee provisions and an explanation of potential financial risks to the City and 
County of San Francisco. 

On March 10. 1997, an addendum to this RFQ was issued detailing the requirements of the 
Human Rights Commission MBE. WBE subconsultant goals for the A E team. MBE goals were 
set at 20% and WBE goals at 7%. Two Orientation Conferences and a Site Visit were held prior 
to the receipt of qualification packages. 



■IMPROVING THE GUALIT/ Of LIFE IN SAN FRANCISCO" We are devested mar.iduals committed to teamwork, customer 
service and continuous imcro'/ement in partnershio with the community 



Attachment 1 

Page 2 of 3 

Mr. Ken Bruce 
2/08/2000 
Page 2 

On March 27, 1997, responses were received from six Design Build Finance teams. These 
packages were reviewed by a selection panel comprising of staff of the Sheriffs Department. 
DPW, the City Attorney's Office, the Mayor's Office of Public Finance and 'he City Architect 
from the City of Oakland. Key selection criteria included experience in the design build project 
delivery method, team qualifications, management ability and specific experience in the design 
and construction of projects similar in size and complexity. Oral presentations were held with all 
six teams. 

Five teams were shortlisted on the basis of qualifications and all five teams were approved bv 
HRC. 



Phase II: Issuance of a Request for Proposal (RFP) 

In August 199S, the Project Criteria Package detailing Design and Finance requirements was 
distributed to the five shortlisted teams. Prior to this, the Design Build Finance ordinance was 
passed by the Board of Supervisors and the EIR for the project was certified. A presentation on 
financial issues was held by the City on September 2. 1998. 

Receipt of Proposal and Selection Process 

On December 7, 1998, proposals were submitted by two Design Build Lease teams: 

1. Turner Construction Company Inc. DMJM (TCC1 DMJM). and 

2. Prison Realty Trust/Morse Diesel Intl. Inc. Kaplan McLaughlin Diaz (PRT TvlDI KMD). 



Two selection panels were convened to independently evaluate the proposals. One panel 
reviewed Technical and Administrative requirements for which a total of SO points was 
allocated. This review covered Site. Landscape. Building Design. Project Schedule Quality 
Control Program and MBEAVBE utilization. 

The second panel evaluated the Cost of Proposal for which,* total of 120 points was allocated. 
Selection criteria included Project costs. Lease costs and other factors relating to risk or cost to 
CCSF. 

The team of PRT MDI KMD received higher scores from 10 out of the 1 1 panelists. The team 
was therefore designated the Highest Ranked Proposer. In February 1999. negotiations 
commenced with this team. 



Attachment 1 

. ., r, Page 3 ot 3 

Mr. Ken Bruce 

Z'8/00 

Page 3 



COST SAVINGS 

During the negotiation, the City team ( DPW, City Attorney. City Architect, Sheriff. Mayor's Office) 
focused on reducing the cost of the project. Several cost saving elements were achieved without 
negatively effecting the integrity of the Sheriffs program or operational use of the facility. The overall 
size of the facility was reduced to 280.000 sq. ft from approximately 400,000 sq. ft.This was 
accomplished by fine tuning the program to change the function of the kitchen from a system wide 
service to an on-site service facility. Other cost saving elements included a direct adjacency of the 
recreation area to the housing pods thereby eliminating the need for unnecessary circulation space and 
providing for greater control and supervision by Deputies. The circular geometry of the Housing pods was 
developed to allow for greater visual access into the holding cells. The tighter configuration also reduced 
the area of structure, foundation walls and footings, resulting in less construction costs. 

DESIGN TEAM GOALS 

The design team M/WBEgoals for the project are 20% and 7% respectively. Referring to attachment ~3 
the design team reflects HRC participation of 46.6 Vo, MBE 39%, and WBE 7.6%. 

ADDITIONAL COST CONTROL PROTECTIONS 

The Ordinance was carefully developed to provide the City with three primary cost control mechanisms: 
competitive subcontracting bids over S500,000; a re-design/re-bid procedure to contain subcontracting 
costs; and strict language prohibiting material/product substitutions. 

Competitive bidding of critical building component such as the mechanical, electrical, plumbing, security, 
fire/life safety, and structural systems represent 80% of the estimated construction cost> The City team 
selected the S500.000 threshold as a method to focus attention on the major divisions of workscope of the 
project. 

The DPW Project Manager will work closely with the contractor, Human Rights Commission, Sherriff s 
Department , Mayor's Office, and City Attorney in the preparation of subcontract bid packages and 
bidding process. Once the lowest responsive subcontractor's bid is determined, the Project Manager will 
recommend acceptance of the lowest responsive bid to the City Engineer. A contract modification 
authorized by the Director of Public Works will be issued to the Developer. Prison Realty Trust, and it 
will serve as the award of contract to the subcontractors. 

PROJECT TIMELINE: 

Upon approval of the Ordinance by the Board of Supervisors, a 36 month schedule is anticipated after a 
contract is negotiated and a notice to proceed is issued by the Director of Public Works. 



Sincerelv, 




Director of Public 



'IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN SAN FRANCISCO' We are dedicated individuals committed to teamwork, customer 
ser/ice and continuous improvement m partnership with the con' ■ 



Attachment 2 



Morse Diesel 

^INTERNATIONAL, I N C. f~ 
«■ CONSTRUCTION/CONSULTING ^ 



County Jail #3 

Project Cost Estimate 

2/8/2000 



Description 


MDI Estimate 


Subcontractors 


Division 2 - Sitework 8.094.328 


Division 3 - Foundations 12.370.641 


Division 4 - Masonry 4,130,446 


Division 5 - Metals 3,888.037 


Division 6 - Wood & Plastic 


1,261.705 


Division 7 - Thermo/Moisture Protection 


2.020.526 


Division 8 - Doors & Windows 


9.109.557 


Division 9 - Finishes 


4.437.041 


Division 10 - Specialties 


1.900.664 


Division 11 - Equipment 


2.145.734 


Division 12 - Furnishings 


25.420 


Division 1 3 - Special Construction (ind. Design cost for Sec. Eec. & SpnnWers) 


5.286.2S3 


Division 14 - Conveying Systems 


973.709 


Division 15 - Mechanical (ind. Design cost for Mechanical Systems) 


15.900,898 


Division 16 - Electrical (inci. Design cost fcr Eectncal Systems) 


13.739.702 


Subtotal 


536,441,522 


Subcontractor Bonds 


808.473 


Total Subcontractors Cost 


$36,250,000 


Design 


KMD Design 7.000.0CC 


Total Design Cost 57,000,000 


Bonds/Insurance/Permits 


MDI Bond 1.050.000 


Permits 


525.000 


Builders Risk Insurance 


222.348 


Professional Liability Insurance 


199.500 


General Liability Insurance 1,029.500 


Gross Receiot Tax 348,500 


Total Bonds/lnsurance/Permlts 53,382.843 


MDI 


General Conditions/Fee 18,267,152 


Total MDI Cost/Fee $18,367,152 


Total 5115,000,000 



Attachment 3 



San Bruno Jail Replacement - City Costs 



Peer Review (Estimated): Provide design review during planning/design phase 
to insure compliance with program requirements. This task will be performed by 
consultants with expertise in prison design. 



5500,000 



Testing, Inspection & Contract Administration: 

Materials Testing (Estimated): Provide testing of materials such as soils, concrete, 

reinforcing steel, welding and other testing specified in the contract. 

Inspection: Provide inspection and construction administration services to insure 
work is in compliance with contract documents. 





Class 


5208 


Civil Engineer 


5206 


Associate Engineer 


5204 


Assistant Engineer 


5238 


Assoc. Elect. Engr 


5254 


Assoc. Mech. Engr 


5268 


Architect 


6348 


Electrical Inspector 


6342 


Plumbing Inspector 


1446 


Secretary II 



Cost/Hour 


# of Hrs 


Subtotal 


105.05 


6,500 


682,825 


90.75 


6,000 


544,500 


77.55 


5,000 


387,750 


90.75 


3,500 


317,625 


90.75 


3,500 


317,625 


106.70 


4,000 


426,800 


96.11 


3,750 


360,422 


96.11 


3,750 


360,422 


59.40 


6,250 


371,250 



5350,000 



53,769,219 



3 Site Hazardous Materials Mitigation & Environ. Issues Monitoring (Estimated): 



5500,000 



4 Project Management: Provide project management and technical support services 
to insure project is completed on schedule and within budget. 

Class Cost/Hour # of Hrs Subtotal 



5508 Project Manager IV 
5504 Project Manager II 



152.90 7,000 
112.75 6,750 



1,070,300 
761 ,063 



51,531,353 



5 Construction Management (As Needed Scheduling & Estimating): 



S500.C00 



6 Regulatory fund & City Contingency: 



So, 000.000 



7 Demolition: 

Hazardous Materials Mitigation (Estimated) 
Demo Existing County Jail 



1,750,000 
1,500,000 



S3, 250,000 



8 Other C'<tv Departments: 
City Attorney's Office 
Sheriff's Depanment 



250,000 
250,000 



Total 



S500.000 



517,200.531 



19 



City and County of San Francisco /$ 



OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF 




Attachrent A 
Fage lot 4 



£\ Michael Hennessc 

SHERIFF 
415 - 554 - 7225 



February 10, 2000 
Ref.: BPM 00-008 



Mr. Ken Bruce 
Budget Analyst's Office 
1390 Market Street 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

Dear Ken: 

This letter responds to two issues you raised in your review of the 
proposed new jail at San Bruno. I have discussed your questions with 
the Sheriff and his position is as follows: 

First, you inquired as to whether the proposed capacity of the new jail 
(768 beds compared to the current 550 beds in County Jail #3) will 
create "excess capacity" and therefore possible operational savings by 
allowing us to close other facilities in whole or part. 

Currently, the San Francisco County jails do not have sufficient 
capacity to house all the prisoners committed to custody. Not only are 
there approximately 100 persons sleeping on the jail floors today, but 
there are over 600 convicted prisoners not in-jail custody at all, 
serving sentences in jail alternative programs. The ability to house 
prisoners committed to the Sheriff's custody will be enhanced by the 
new jail. 

Additionally, it is generally less safe to operate a jail at 100 percent 
capacity. National standards suggest that at 80 percent capacity, a jail 
can more safely house classes of prisoners who must be separated for 

safety purposes. 



ROOM J:- 

1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODIE 



T :>'_-\CE 



lN CISCO. c- 






Attachment 4 
Page 2 of 4 



Ken Bruce 

Budget Analyst's Office 
February 10, 2000 
Page 2 



This new facility will not open for more than three years. Although no 
one can predict the future, the accompanying graph shows that the 
San Francisco County jail population has consistently grown over the 
past several decades. Using any available data, one would have to 
conclude that the jail population will continue to grow over the next 
three years. 

Second, you questioned whether there would be potential operational 
savings from a modern jail facility. You point to Santa Clara, Los 
Angeles, and San Diego counties, which identified savings achievable 
by reduced staffing in their new jail facilities. 

Our preliminary staffing analysis determined that we might be able to 
operate the new facility, which will house 218 or 40 percent more 
prisoners than the existing jail, without a significant increase in 
staffing. The existing CJ#3 is a linear jail; the new facility is a direct 
supervision jail. There is generally limited staff interaction with 
prisoners in linear jails; direct supervision jails are designed to 
promote a much higher level of interaction, which, due to its nature 
and intensity, requires more staff to properly and safely manage such 
housing. 

Much of the savings in new jail construction is due to the philosophy of 
taking all "goods and services" to the prisoners in their housing units. 
This reduces the number of movement deputies, as well as the need 
for fixed posts in program, visiting, and medical areas. Each housing 
unit is built to include classrooms, medical offices, and visiting rooms. 
The housing units in San Francisco's proposed new jail facility are not. 
There is, in fact, significant movement required to manage the 
prisoners in the new facility. 

As originally designed, the new facility would have included a system- 
wide kitchen which would have resulted in savings by cutting duplicate 
functions in other San Francisco County jails. To reduce construction 
costs, this was eliminated in the proposed design, which then 
eliminated any potential savings from the proposed functional 
consolidation. 



?i 



Attachment U 
Page 3 ot 4 



Ken Bruce 

Budget Analyst's Office 
February 10, 2000 
Page 3 



Non-personnel savings are also difficult to quantify, because the 
existing jail facility is so old and dilapidated, while the proposed new 
facility will be built to current building, electrical and mechanical 
codes. The new facility will include many more electrical and electronic 
devices and will also have a real heating, fire suppression, smoke 
removal, ventilation, and air exchange system. These could increase 
utility costs beyond our current spending rate. We do, however, expect 
to reduce our duct tape expenditures significantly. 

I hope this addresses your concerns in this matter. 

Sincerely, 

Jean Mariani 

Budget & Program Manager 



Enclosure 



22 



Attachment 4 
Page 4 of 4 



a 
o 
a. 

'ra 

-3 
>l 

C 
3 
O 

o 

o 

o 
tfl 

"6 

c 



c 
ra 

C/3 




uoi}E|ndod ^neq a6ej3AV 



23 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 11-00-0275 



Department: 



Item: 



Description: 



Health Services System (HSS) 
Department of Human Resources (DHR) 

Resolution establishing the monthly contribution amount 
to be made to the Health Services Trust Fund by the City 
and County of San Francisco, the San Francisco Unified 
School District, and the San Francisco Community 
College District for Fiscal Year 2000-2001. 

The proposed resolution would establish the dollar 
amount of the employer's contribution to be made to the 
Health Service Trust Fund by the City and County of San 
Francisco (City), the San Francisco Unified School 
District (SFUSD), and the San Francisco Communitv 
College District (SFCCD) for FY 2000-2001. 

The Health Services Board and the City and County 
Health Service System, as required by Charter Sections 
\s 123 and A8.428, have surveyed the ten most populous 
counties in the State (excluding San Francisco) to 
determine the average dollar contribution made by these 
counties toward each employee's medical care insurance 
(not including dental and optical care insurance). 

In accordance with the Charter, this resolution would 
establish the FY 2000-2001 monthly contribution rate for 
health care insurance to be paid by the City, the SFUSD, 
and the SFCCD, at $192.23 per month, or $2,306.76 
annually, for each eligible, active employee, based on the 
survey results of the average payment made by the ten 
most populous counties in California, excluding San 
Francisco, as shown in the table on the following page in 
order of most to least populous county: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Average Contributed 

County Monthly Amount 

Los Angeles $217.15 

San Diego 153.84 

Orange 255.24 

Santa Clara 190.36 

San Bernadino 176.86 

Riverside 183.69 

Alameda 186.87 

Sacramento $198.12 

Contra Costa 174.53 

Fresno 185.67 

Total $1,922.33 

According to HSS, the ten-county survey for FY 2000- 
2001 indicates tnat the average employer contribution of 
the ten most populous counties in California (excluding 
San Francisco) is $192.23 per month, or $2,306.76 
annually, per employee, not including dental and optical 
care insurance. The City's current FY 1999-2000 
contribution is $180.85 monthly or $2,170.20 annually, 
per employee. The proposed resolution would establish 
$192.23 as the monthly per employee contribution to be 
made in FY 2000-2001 by the City. SFUSD, and SFCCD 
for the health insurance costs of their employees. The 
proposed monthly rate of $192.23 for FY 2000-2001 
represents an increase of $11.38 per month or 
approximately 6.3 percent from the $180.85 monthly rate 
currently contributed in FY' 1999-2000. 

Comments: 1. The City's budget preparation system used by the 

Controller to compile the City's annual budget calculates 
the Health Service System costs for all funded positions. 
Ms. Peg Stevenson of the Controller's Office informs that 
the calculated cost of the increase in contributions for FY 
2000-2001 is $2,978,846 for General Fund supported 
positions and $3,863,650 for all funded positions in the 
City's budget. 

2. As previously noted, the City's contribution for health 
care coverage in FY 2000-2001 is equal to the average 
contribution of the ten most populous counties in 
California, excluding San Francisco, as determined by an 
HSS survey taken in January 2000. Given that the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



surveyed counties may subsequently increase or decrease 
their actual contributions for FY 2000-2001, San 
Francisco's contribution may, in fact, be greater or less 
than the actual average contributions to be provided by 
the ten counties in FY 2000-2001. However, because HSS 
is required by the Charter to collect the comparative data 
in January of each year, HSS is not able to set its FY 
2000-2001 rates based on the final FY" 2000-2001 rates of 
the other ten surveyed counties. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 







cc: Supervisor Yee 

Supervisor Bierman 
President Ammiano 
Supervisor Becerril 
Supervisor Brown 
Supervisor Katz 
Supervisor Kaufman 
Supervisor Leno 
Supervisor Newsom 
Supervisor Teng 
Supervisor Yaki 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Legislative Analyst 
Matthew Hymel 
Stephen Kawa 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 10 - File 00-0268 

Department: 

Item: 



Location: 
Purpose of Lease: 

Lessor: 

Lessee: 



Airport 

Resolution approving the North Terminal Hub 
Principal Retail Concession lease between Host 
International, Inc. and the City and County of San 
Francisco, acting by and through its Airport 
Commission. 

North Terminal Hub of the Airport 

Concession space for a specialty store and a 
newsstand (See Deocription Section below) 

City and County of San Francisco through the 
Airport Commission 

Host International 



No. of Sq. Ft. and 

Monthly Rental Revenues 

Payable by 

Host International 

to the Airport: 



A total of 4,984 square feet at two locations in the 
Aii-port's North Terminal Hub, consisting of 3,784 
square feet for a specialty store and 1,200 square feet 
for a newsstand. The total rental revenues to be paid 
by Host International to the Airport based on the 
Minimum Annual Guarantee would be 
approximately $42.50 per square foot per month, or 
$212,500 per month ($2,550,000 annually). 



Annual Rental Revenues 

Payable by 

Host International 

to the Airport: 



The proposed lease would require Host International 
to pay the Airport the greater of a Minimum Annual 
Guarantee (MAG) of $2,550,000 for each year of the 
five year lease term, or a percentage of gross 
revenues realized by Host International. According 
to the lease, the annual percentage of gross revenues 
is 12% for the first $500,000. 14% between $500,000 
and $1,000,000, and 16% for all gross revenues in 
excess of $1,000,000. The terms of the proposed lease 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



are similar to the terms of concession leases 
previously approved by the Board of Supervisors for 
the Airport. The subject lease also provides for 
annual increases in the Minimum Annual Guarantee 
based on increases in the U.S. Department of Labor 
Department Store Inventory Price Index-Soft Goods. 1 



Term of Lease: 



The proposed lease is scheduled to commence in 
December of 2000, upon completion of the required 
renovation work by Host International. The lease 
would be for a five-year period, terminating in 
December of 200". 



The five-year lease term begins on the Rent 
Commencement Date, defined in the lease as the 
first day both spaces covered by the subject lease are 
fully operational. According to Ms. Gigi Ricasa of the 
Airport, the specialty store is expected to be 
operational by June 10, 2000. However, the 
newsstand is not expected to be operational until 
December of 2000 due to the North Terminal/Thumb 
Expansion. Ms Ricasa advises that prior to 
completion of the newsstand and the Rent 
Commencement Date, expected in December of 2000, 
Host International will pay to the Airport a prorated 
rent based on th* ;uare feet for the operating 

specialty store (the total 4,984 square feet covered by 
the subject lease less the 1,200 square feet for the 
newsstand). 



Right of Renewal: 



None 



Utilities and Janitor 

Provided by Lessor: The Lessee will pay for the costs of all utilities and 
janitorial services. 



Description: 



The proposed resolution would approve a concession 
lease for Host International to operate one specialty 
store and one newsstand in the North Terminal Hub 
of the Airport. L'nder the terms of the subject lease, 



1 According to Ms. Gigi Ricasa of the Airport, soft goods are defined as retail goods such a 
toys, sunglasses, and books. The Airport has determined that this price index is the most 
appropriate one to applv to leases for Airport concessions. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Host International has identified the following five 
retail "concepts" to be sold in the specialty store: (1) 
Souvenir/Gift Items; (2) High-End Retail; (3) Bay 
Area-Northern California Specialty Items; (4) 
Museum-Related Products; and (5) Aviation-Related 
Products. 

The proposed lease would require Host International 
to sell the following at the newsstand: local, daily 
and out-of-town newspapers; 200 separately 
displayed periodicals and magazines; 300 separately 
displayed hardback and paperback books, plus 
candy, tobacco, health aids, and souvenir items. 

Host International would directly operate the first 3 
of the 5 concepts listed above for the specialty store 
and all of the newsstand, totaling 3,488 square feet, 
or 70 percent of the total 4,984 square feet covered 
by the subject lease. Host International would 
sublease operation of the two remaining concepts in 
the specialty store to two Disadvantaged Business 
Enterprises (DBEs): 1-5 Concessions, LLC and Sun 
Shade Holding Corporation. The total 1,496 square 
feet sub-leased by the DBE companies would be 
approximately 30 percent of the total 4,984 square 
footage covered by the lease. 

The following table identifies the two retail spaces 
covered by the subject lease, the five concepts for the 
specialty store, the types of goods sold by each 
business, and the square footage occupied by each 
business. 



Concession 


Operator 


Concept 


Sq. Feet 


Specialty 
Store 


Host 


Souvenir / Gift Items 


2,288 


High-End Retail 


Bay Area & Northern 
California Items 


1-5 Concessions 


Aviation Products 


748 


Sun Shade | Museum Products 


748 


Total Sq. Ft for Specialty Store 


3,784 


Newsstand 


Host Newsstand 


1,200 


Total Square Feet for Lease 


4,984 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Tenet 
Improvements: 



Host International would be required to invest a 
minimum of $150 per square foot to renovate the 
subject lease space, or a total of $747,600 for the 
4,984 square feet covered by the subject lease. 

Under the terms of the proposed lease, Host 
International would have the option to request 
Airport approval for two temporary facilities to sell 
merchandise during such renovations, estimated to 
take 90 days. During such time. Host would pay the 
Airport a percentage rent of 20 percent of gross 
revenues. In addition, Ms. Ri ites that the 

Airport plans to give Host International permission 
to operate a temporary facility to sell newsstand 
merchandise during the period that the North 
Terminal Hub/Thumb Expansion delays the turnover 
of space to Host International. Host International 
will pay to the Airport 20 percent of gross revenues 
earned from the temporary newsstand facility. 



Comment: 



According to Ms. Ricasa, on September 21. 1999 the 
Airport issued Invitations to Bid to 60 firms for the 
subject concession lease, as stated in the Attachment 
to this report, provided by the Airport. Subsequently, 
on December 21, 1999, the Airport Commission 
adopted a resolution awarding the lease to Host 
International, the highest responsive and qualified 
bidder. The Attachment also contains a list of all 
firms that submitted bids for this concession and 
their Minimum Annual Guarantees. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment Pa^e 1 of 




San Francisco International Airport 



s O. Hex 2U3/ 
5or, fiar-osta C\ 9«12S 
T »i 650. 7S<i 5C00 
H« S3ii.794.3CS3 



I55IOT 



VIA FACSIMILE. (415) 252-0416 

DATE: February 23, 2000 

70: Emily Newman 

Budget Analyst Office 

FROM: Gigi Ricasa SX 

Airport Concession Development and Management 



1)11N1 , Subject: North Terminal Hub Principal Retail Concession Lease (the "Lease") 

This Lease was developed based on the compatibility with passenger needs and 
desires, current marketing and retaii trends, demographics of the traveling public, 
the economy, the existing concession the surrounding area and proposals received 
from the community or retail industry. 

Standard Marketing Procedure foranv Concession Oocortunftv 

After Airport Commission approves staff to conduct a pre-bid/proposal conference, 
Concession Development and Management ("CDM") staff mails a letter of interest 
to a mailing list that has been generated by CDM that relates to the concept of the 
concession opportunity. The interested parties who respond to the letter of interest 
are placed on a more specified mail list. The specified mail list receives copies of 
pre-bids and bid documents. For this Lease, the draft Request for Qualification and 
Proposal and Bid ("RFQ/P and Bid") Documents and the final RFQ/P/ and Bid 
Documents were mailed to approximately 60 pecple who responded to the letter of 
interest. There were 32 attendees at the public informational conference held in 
August 1999. 

Competitive Process 

The competitive process used for this Lease was a proposal and a bid process. 
Interested parties were each required to submit a proposal, which requires for four 
to five retail concepts in the bigger space and a newsstand for the smaller space. 
The other main requirement was that the successful Proposer sublease 30% of the 
total square footage to Disadvantaged Business Enierprise(s). If the propcsal(s) 
was deemed acceptable, the proposer advances to the second stage, which is the 
bid stage. The Proposer's bid form is opened at a public meeting and at this stage, 
whoever submits the highest bid amount is announced the apparent successful 
bidder. This Bidder then submits additional paperwork regarding Human Rights 
Commission Requirement to ensure that this Bidder meets those requirements. 



Attachment 
Page 2 of 2 

Memo to Emily Newman 
February 23. 2000 
Page 2 



Result of RFQ/Pf and Bid 

There were two companies who submitted proposals: O Host International, Inc. and © 
Pacific Gateway Concessions, LLC. Both proposals were deemed acceptable, 
therefore, both Proposers' bid forms were opened, and the result was: 

Bidder Bid Amount 

Host International, Inc. 52,550,000 

Pacific Gateway Concessions, LLC 51 ,408,999.99 

The Airport Commission formally awarded the Lease to Host International, Inc. en 
December 21, 1999. 

Highest Bidder and its Proposed Subtenant 

Host proposed four concepts in the bigger space, and they are: O Souvenir 
merchandise, © Museum items, © Aviation items © California regional packaged food 
products, and © High end retail. Host will sublease two of the concepts to the 
following DBEs: I-5 Concessions, LLC and Sun Shade Holding Corporation. The rent 
for the DBE is as follows: Tenant shall charge the DBE Subtenant, as rent, no more 
than the same tiered rent percentage to the DBEs, which is as follows: 

■ 12% of Gross Revenues from the subleased premises achieved up to and 
including $500,000; plus 

■ 14% of Gross Revenues from the subleased premises achieved from 5500,000.01 
up to and including 51,000,000; plus 

■ 1 6% of Gross Revenues from the subleased premises over 51 ,000,000. 

Please do not hesitate to contact me at (650) 794-4505 if you have further questions. 
Thank you for your assistance in obtaining Board of Supervisors' approval on this 
Lease. 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Items 8 and 9 - File 00-0235 and File 00-0236 



Department: 
Item: 



Comment: 



Airport 

File 00-0235 : Resolution approving two new 

automated teller machine leases for the new 
International Terminal between Travelex America, 
Inc. and the City and County of San Francisco, 
acting by and through its Airport Commission. 

File 00-0236 : Resolution approving a new 

foreign currency exchange lease at the Airport 
between Travelex America, Inc. and the City and 
County of San Francisco, acting by and through its 
Airport Commission. 

Mr. John Ballesteros of the Airport has requested 
that the proposed resolutions be continued for one 
week. 



Recommendation: 



Continue the proposed resolutions to the Finance 
and Labor meeting of March 8, 2000 as requested 
by the Airport. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 7 - File 00-0244 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 



Department of Elections 

Ordinance appropriating $2,300,097 ($2,118,610 from the 
General Fund Reserve and $181,487 from various 
governmental revenues) for salaries, fringe benefits, non- 
personal services, materials and supplies, and equipment 
for the Department of Elections for FY 1999-2000. 

$2,300,097 

The proposed funding sources for the subject 
supplemental appropriation of $2,300,097 are as follows: 



Funding Sources 


Subtotals 


Amount 


General Fund Reserve 




$2,118,610 


Surplus FY' 1999-2000 Revenues (see Comment No. 1) 






State Mandated Cost - Various 
County Candidate Filing Fees 
Other General Government Charges 

Subtotal: 


104.887 

30,300 

46.300 

$181,487 


181.487 


TOTAL: 




$2,300,097 



Description: 



The proposed ordinance would appropriate $2,300,097 for 
Department of Elections salaries, fringe benefits, non- 
personal services, materials and supplies, and equipment. 
The total amount of S2. 300.097 would fund three sets of 
expenditures: 

(a) the projected FY* 1999-2000 budget shortfall of 
SI. 482. 730 for Department of Elections operations for 
a third election, and higher than anticipated poll 
worker fees and mandatory fringe benefits: 

(b) a new initiative to update and purge the voter roll 
during FY" 1999-2000. at a cost of $210,303: and 

(c) miscellaneous system improvements and replacement 
costs associated with the implementation of a new 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



S7 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Budget: 



optical scan vote count system and a new voter 
registration scanning system, at a cost of $607,058. 

The proposed budget in the amount of $2,300,097 is as 
follows: 



Expenditure Item 




Subtotals 


Amount 


FY 1999-2000 Budget Shortfall 








Permanent Salaries (see Comment No. 1) 




($139,939) 




Temporary Salaries 




526,067 




Overtime - Miscellaneous 




52,074 




Overtime — Temporary 




281,660 




Premium Pay 




8,352 




Mandatory Fringe Benefits 




91,633 




Non-personal Services 




294,699 




Stipends for Poll Workers 




323,679 




Materials and Supplies 




24,305 




Services of Other Departments 




20.200 






Subtotal: 


1,482,730 


$1,482,730 


Update and Purge of Voter Roll 








Temporary Salaries 




140,626 




Overtime - Temporary 




12,799 




Mandatory Fringes 




21,884 




Non-personal Services 




35,000 






Subtotal- 


210,309 


210,309 


Costs Associated with New Scanning Svstems 




100,000 




Temporary Salaries 


Minor Furnishings 




293,808 




Equipment Purchase 




213.250 






Subtotal: 


$607,058 


607.058 


TOTAL: 






$2, 300,097 



Attachment I. provided by the Department of Elections, 
presents an analysis of the Department's projected 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

expenditure deficit and explains the projected budget for 
the proposed supplemental appropriation in more detail. 

Comments: 1. According to Mr. Ara Minasian of the Department of 

Administrative Services, $181,487 of FY 1999-2000 
department revenues are surplus because the revenues 
from (a) State mandated costs, (b) county candidate filing 
fees, and (c) other general government charges are 
$181,487 higher than estimated. Mr. Minasian adds that 
permanent salaries ire projected to be underexpended by 
$139,939 due to the vacancy of two positions for most of 
FY 1999-2000 and such savings can be used a source of 
funds for the proposed supplemental appropriation. 

According to Mr. Minasian, the Department of 
Elections' FY 1999-2000 operating budget was submitted 
and approved on the assumption that two elections would 
be conducted during the year, one on November 2. 1999 
and a second on March 7, 2000. However, the 
Department of Election's FY' 1999-2000 costs have 
increased due to (a) the December 14, 1999 Mayoral and 
District Attorney run-off election, (b) a $120,000 increase 
in poll worker fees due to improved recruitment and 
retention of qualified, dependable poll workers and a 
consequent reduction in poll worker absenteeism, and (c) 
the payment of $30,000 in mandatory fringe benefits to 
temporary employees who have been retained for most of 
FY 1999-2000 due to the three elections. These three 
increased expenditures have resulted in an estimated 
total overexpenditure of $1,482,730 after accounting for 
the anticipated expenditures for the March 7. 2000 
primary election. 

3. Ms. Naomi Xishioka of the Department of Elections 
states that the proposed supplemental appropriation can 
be reduced by $10,000 as the Department of Elections will 
not need to enter into a $10,000 contract with a phone 
bank services company for the March 7, 2000 election. 
The Budget Analyst therefore recommends that the 
proposed supplemental appropriation of $2,300,097 be 
reduced by $10,000 for an amended total of $2,290,097. 

4. According to Ms. Xishioka. the Department of 
Elections has not thoroughly purged the voter roll of 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



duplicate and other inactive registrations since FY 1996- 
97. Such a purge would (a) improve the accuracy of the 
voter roll, (b) reduce the variable costs associated with 
each registered voter, such as printing and mailing voter 
information pamphlets, and (c) speed up the processing of 
special ballots. Ms. Nishioka states that the planned 
voter file purging activities, at a total cost of $210,309, 
include: 

• verifying the addresses of persons who have not voted 
or contacted the Department of Elections over a long 
period of time and analyzing voter registrations 
through the CALVOTER system, using temporary 
staff at an estimated cost of $175,309; and 

• . buying back from the United States Postal Service 
40,000 March 7, 2000 voter information pamphlets 
which could not be delivered, mailing 40,000 correction 
confirmation cards to voters, and receiving an 
estimated 20,000 business reply paid cards back, at an 
estimated total cost of $35,000. 

According to Ms. Nishioka, voter roll purging has not been 
performed by permanent City employees in the past 
because the Department of Elections has not had, and 
continues not to have, sufficient permanent staff capacity 
to perform such work. The last such purging of the voter 
roll, performed in FY 1996-97, was performed by 
temporary employees. 

5. Attachment II, provided by the Department of 
Elections, explains the budget for voter roll purging in 
more detail. Mr. Minasian states that the difference of 
$21,885 between Attachment II's total of $188,424 and 
the subject supplemental appropriation request for 
$210,309 is accounted for by mandatory fringe benefits. 

6. According to Ms. Nishioka, the Department of 
Elections plans to enter into an equipment lease 
purchasing agreement in the Spring of 2000. subject to 
Board of Supervisors approval, to purchase a new optical 
scan vote count system for use in the November 7, 2000 
general election. Ms. Nishioka states that the estimated 
total cost of the Election Systems and Software. Inc. 
(ES&S) hardware and software required for an optical 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



scan vote count system would be $3,241,738 (inclusive of 
Sales Tax). Ms. Nishioka states that the initial lease 
purchase payments for acquisition of the ES&S optical 
scan vote count system will be included in the 
Department of Elections FY 2000-2001 budget in the 
approximate amount of $767,000. 

7. Ms. Nishioka states that, in order to ensure a smooth 
conversion to the new system, during FY 1999-2000 (a) 
ancillary information systems hardware and software, 
furniture, and other infrastructure need to be upgraded or 
replaced at an esti mated cost of $402,008, and (b) 
temporary City staff with project management skills need 
to be hired to support a wide variety of planning activities 
at an .-timated cost of $100,000. 

Mr. Minasian states thai the $100,000 budget for 
temporary project management itaff was determined by 
the Elections Council which comprises the Controller, the 
City Administrator, and a representative of the City 
Attorney's Office. According to Controller Ed Harrington, 
the Elections Council strongly recommends funding for 
necessary project management and critical technical 
resources to ensure that the new optical scan vote count 
in is implemented successfully by the November 7. 
2000 general election. Mr. Harrington adds that details 
on such project management staffing will be identified 
during the remainder of FY 1999-2000 and specifically 
enumerated in the proposed FY 2000-2001 budget. 

Furthermore, equipment in the amount of $105,050 needs 
to be purchased for a new voter registration scanning 
system for the reasons outlined in the attached 
memorandum provided by the Department of Elections 
(Attachment III). 

8. Mr. Minasian states that funding in the amount of 
$607,058 was not included in the FY 1999-2000 budget as 
the decision to purchase a new optical scan vote count 
system and a new voter registration scanning system was 
not made until after the Department of Election's FY 
1999-2000 budget was finalized. Attachment IV is a 
detailed budget in the amount of $607,058 provided by the 
Department of Elections. The Budget Analyst has 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

reviewed vendor price quotations for the equipment 
specified and found that the budget amount requested is 
reasonable. With regard to Attachment rVs line-item 
budget for voting booths, the proposed amount of 
$250,000 would purchase between approximately 3,846 
and 4,167 voting booths at the anticipated cost of between 
$60 and $65 per voting booth. 

Recommendations: 1. In accordance with Comment No. 3 above, reduce the 

total supplemental appropriation by $10,000 to 
$2,290,097. 

2. Approval of the proposed ordinance, as amended, is a 
policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment I 



Department of Elections 
Operating Needs January - June 2000 





Actual thru 


1/19/00 






Projected 


Add'l Fundin 


g Needs fo 




1/19/00 


Projection 


Actual 


Revised 


Surplus/ 


Operating 


Voter File 




(ppd 1/7/00) 


Jan-June 


+ Projection 


Budget 


(Deficit) 


Costs 


Maint 
















001 Permanent Salaries 


$ 336.918 


S 353.835 


$ 690.753 


S 830.692 


S 139.939 


$ 139.939 


















005 Temporary Salaries 














Voter Services 




333.393 










Precinct Services 




234. 124 










Candidate/Campaign Services 




71 '33 










Publications and Media 




20,355 










Computer Services 




21.392 










Administrative Services 




5,000 










Total 


827.872 


685,397 


1.513.269 


846.576 


■-.693) 


(526.067) 


















01 101 Overtime- Misc. 


66 549 


33.275 


99.824 


47,750 


■ 




















01 105 Overtime - Temp. 














Voter Services 




59.184 










Precinct Services 




28.584 










Candidate Campaign. Services 




30.892 










Publications and Media 




3.053 










Computer Services 




5 157 






[2i-- 




Total 


246,724 


126.870 


373.594 


79,135 


(28: • 


















00901 Premium Pay 


5,926 


5.926 








(8.2 


















013 Mandatory Fringes 


211.675 


171.923 


383.598 


270.081 


113 517) 


(91 E 


I 
















021 Non-Personal Svcs (excl. 02699) 














Voter Services 














. 


Precinct Services 




139,034 










Candidate/Campaign Services 




18.400 










Publications and Media 




363.096 










Computer Services 




■ 










Total 


978.441 




4.208 


1.274,509 


(329 


(294,699) 


















02699 Other Fees 














Precinct Services 


482.066 




729.894 


40! 




(323.679) 
















■ 














let Services 




109.520 










Precinct Services 




90 576 










Candidate/Campaign S 




5.000 










Computer Services 




1.800 










Total 


174,189 




381.085 


356.780 






















081 Services of Other Departments 




320.981 


360.365 
























Total Operating Needs for Jan-June 


S 3.369,744 


S2, 773, 698 


S 6,148,442 


$4,455,403 


5(1,693.039) 


| $(1,432,730) 


;■ : 20; 



2/18/00 



I. VOTER SERVICES DIVISION - DEPARTMENT OF ELECTION 
FY 1999-2000 / Budget Estimates for Voter File Maintenance Activities 



Attachment II 



TEMPORARY SALARIES 
7 Week period before and after election Voter File Maintenance 



Position 


Staff 


Regular Hours 


Overtime 
Hours 


Hourly Rate 


Regular Amount 


Overtime 
Amount 




1404 -DE 


8 


280 


16 


$15.18 


$ 33,992 


S 2,914 




1402- DE 


3 


280 


16 


S13.96 


S 11,729 


S 1,005 




1403 -DE 


2 


280 


16 


S16.78 


S 9,394 


S 805 




3 Week period before and after election Voter File Maintenance - Manual 






Position 


Staff 


Regular Hours 


Overtime 
Hours 


Hourly Rate 


Regular Amount 


Overtime 
Amount 




1403- AS 


2 


120 


16 


S16.78 


S 4,026 


S 805 




1402 -AS 


13 


120 


16 


S13.96 


S 21,782 


S 4,356 




1404 -AS 


8 


120 


16 


$15.18 


S 14,568 


S 2,914 








Total 


$ 95,490 


S 12,799 










S 108, 2i 


I. MVF - Calvoter System Analysis of Voter Registrations - SOS Recommendations 




Position 


Staff 


Regular Hours 


Overtime 
Hours 


Hourly Rate 


Regular Amount 


Overtime 
Amount 




1404- DE 


7 


180 





$15.18 


$ 19,121 


S 








S 19,12 














a. 


Sample Ballot Postal Buy Back: 
Estimated returned corrections 


QUANTITY COST EST. 






40,000 


S 22,000 












S22.0 




b. 


Postage Cost for Mailing of 8D-2 Cards: 
Mailing to voters confirming corrections 


QUANTITY COST EST. 






40,000| S 8,000 












S 8.0C 




c. 


Business Reply 8d2 Postage 
Estimate 1/2 of the cards to be returned by voters 


QUANTITY COST EST. 






20,000| S 5,000 




















S 5.0C 



TEMPORARY SALARIES-On Rotation through June 30, 2000 

Staff to maintain workflow during off peak election period. 



Position 


Staff 


Regu 


ar Hours 


Overtime 
Hours 


Hourly Rate 


Regu 


ar Amount 


Overtime 
Amount 


1404 -DE 


1 


1040 





$15.18 


S 


15,782 


S 


1403 -DE 


1 


610 





S16.78 


s 


10,233 


S 












TOTAL 


$ 


26,015 





DE = Data Entry 
AS = Assembly 



GRAND TOTAL S 188.4 



Note: This reflects periods of time when the workload is at its peak and staff is under regulated deadlines. This does not 
reflect staff time for any unforseen state petitions that are scheduled to be filed before the June deadline. Nor does this 
reflect an abundance of voter response due to the above mailirgs. 



narda's voter file maintenance estimate.xls 



AS OF: 2/18/00 



Department of Elections 

City and County of San Francisco 




Attachment III 

N \omi NlSHIOKA 
Icting Director of Election 



February 23, 2000 



To Alan Gibson 

Budget Analyst 

From : Naomi Nishioka 

Acting Director of Elections 

Subject: Supplemental Appropriation — Clarification on Voter Registration System 

Equipment Included in the Voting System Replacement Project Budget 



I would like to clarify some information about the $607,058 budget for the Voting System 
Replacement Project. Most of the equipment in this budget is related to the new optical 
scan voting system; however, approximately $100,000 of this equipment is to support 
the automation of voter registration file maintenance functions. 

The Secretary of State has approved a new registration form that is designed to be 
scanned into voter files using optical character recognition equipment and software. 
Implementation of this equipment will reduce the need for our staff to enter data 
manually. Instead, staff will be focused on reviewing the scanned information for 
completeness and accuracy. This will increase the overall reliability of our voter 
information files. 

Such equipment in the project budget consists of the following: 



Information Systems Hardware and Software 

Monitor, Large - 21" Data Entry 

Scanner 

Output Tray for LJ8100 Printer 

Office 2000 

Scanner ICR Software 

SQL Upgrade - 50 CAL Upgrade 

Op-Contract / Scanning Workstation 



Please call me if you have any questions. 

c: Bill Lee 

Ed Harrington 
Mayor's Budget Office 

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place - Room 48. San Francisco, CA 94102-4634 
Voice (415) 554-4375; Fax (415) 554-7344; Absentee Fax (415) 554-4372; TDD (415) 5S4-43U 



Quantity 


Price 


Amount 


16 


850 


13.600 


2 


25,000 


50,000 


1 


2,000 


2,000 


30 


600 


18,000 


1 


14,000 


14,000 


1 


3,450 


3,450 


1 


4,000 


4,000 
105,050 



Attachment 
Department of Elections 

Voting System Replacement Project Budget for FY 99-00 



IV 



Information Systems Hardware and Software 


Quantity 


Price 


Amount 


Network Server Equipment 


Server 


1 


$30,000 


$ 30,000 


Server Rack 


1; 


3,000 


3,000 


Server Rack Conversion Kit 


1 


500 


500 


Memory Upgrade - Existing Server 


4 


400 


1,600 


Memory Upgrade - Vote Count 


3 


250 


750 


i Subtotal 






35,850 


Desktop Computers 


Computers 


40 


1,100 . 


44,000 


Laptops 


6 


3,500 


21,000 


; Subtotal 






65,000 


Monitors 


Regular- 17" 


17 


250 


4,250 


Large - 21" Data Entry 


16 


850 


13,600 


Flat Screen AV Counter 


5 


900 


4,500 


Subtotal 




i 


22,350 


Misc Hardware 


Scanner 


2 


25,000 : 


50,000 


: Projectors Screens 


2 


300 


600 


; Output Tray for LJ8 100 Printer 


1 


2,000 


2,000 


ZIP Drive, CDRW Drive 


T 


Looo : 


1,000 


! Subtotal 




I 


53,600 


Software 


i Office 2000 


30 


600 : 


18,000 


Misc Software Upgrades 


1 


1,000 


1,000 


Scanner ICR Software 


1 


14,000 : 


14,000 


SQL Upgrade - 50 CAL Upgrade 


1 


3,450 j 


3,450 


Subtotal 






36,450 


Subtotal - IS Hardware and Software 






213,250 




Other Furnishings 


Voting Booths 


i 




250,000 


Op-Contract / Data Entry Workstations 


I . 121 




29,563 


Op-Contract / Scanning Workstation 


1 


4,000 


4,000 


Absentee Ballot Cages 


2 


220 


440 


Absentee/VRC Carts 


5 


261 


1,305 


Absentee Ballot Sealer 


1 


4,000 


4,000 


Absentee Ballot Sorting Bins 


2 


500 


1,000 


Absentee Letter Opener Attachment 


1 j 


3.000 


3,000 


VRC Storage Trays 


100 


5 


500 


Subtotal - Other Furnishings 






293,808 




Project Management 






100,000 










Total Project Budget for FY 99-00 






$607,058 



2/3/00 



£<; 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 6 - File 00-0273 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Mayor's Office 

Ordinance appropriating $507,025 to General City 
Responsibility, Payments to Other Governments, and 
rescinding $507,025 from Lease-Purchase, to provide funds 
for San Francisco's share of the capital improvement 
budget at the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, for 
Fiscal Year 1999-2000. 

$507,025 

Equipment Lease-Purchase Appropriation 

The proposed ordinance would appropriate $507,025 in 
savings generated through the San Francisco Finance 
Corporation, to complete San Francisco's capital program 
payment for the 1999-2000 Peninsula Corridor Joint 
Powers Board Caltrain Capital Plan. Such funds would be 
transferred from the Equipment Lease-Purchase account to 
the General City Responsibility account to be used for the 
stated purpose. 

In August of 1991, the City entered into a Joint Powers 
Agreement (JPA) with the San Mateo County Transit 
District (SamTrans) and the Santa Clara County Transit 
District regarding the Peninsula Corridor Project. The 
Peninsula Corridor Project involves the Caltrain route that 
currently extends from Gilroy to San Francisco. At that 
time, a Joint Powers Board (JPB) was established as the 
eventual successor to the California Department of 
Transportation (Caltrans) to oversee the Caltrain operator, 
which is currently Amtrak. , 

The JPB consists of nine members, three of which represent 
the City and County of San Francisco. One member is 
appointed by the Mayor, one is appointed by the Board of 
Supervisors, and one is appointed by the Public 
Transportation Commission (PTC). The JPB provides for 
the allocation among the JPB members of the 
administrative, capital, and operating expenses in 
connection with the above-noted Peninsula Corridor 
Project. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



43 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



On August 18, 1999, the Joint Powers Board (JPB) 
approved a two-year capital program for maintenance and 
improvements to Caltrain's right-of-way facilities, and 
rolling stock. The total program calls for completion of 
$84,025,688 in projects, as shown in Attachment I. 

Comments: 1. According to Mr. Benjamin Rosenfield of the Mayor's 

Office, the Federal and State governments will provide 
$73,559,097 to fund the Caltrain capital projects and the 
three Counties will provide $10,466,591 in local matching 
funds ($73,559,097 plus $10,466,591, totaling $84,025,688). 
Of the $10,466,591 local match, $3,384,000 would be offset 
by JPB fare box capital reserves. The remaining 
$7,082,591 would come directly from the three Counties 
over a two-year period, $3,000,000 in FY 1999-2000 and 
$4,082,591 in FY 2000-2001. Attachment II, provided by 
the Mayor's Office, contains a breakdown of the proposed 
funding sources. 

2. Mr. Rosenfield states that each of the three Counties 
shares the capital match requirements equally, resulting in 
a $1,000,000 match (one-third of $3,000,000) from San 
Francisco for FY 1999-2000. Of San Francisco's $1,000,000 
match, $492,975 would come from operating budget savings 
generated by the JPB in FY 1998-1999 and held on San 
Francisco's behalf. The remaining $507,025, which is the 
subject of this ordinance, would come from current year 
San Francisco Finance Corporation debt service savings. 
According to Mr. Rosenfield, such savings have come from 
lower than expected debt service payments on equipment 
purchased through the equipment lease financing program. 
Mr. Rosenfield states that such debt service payment 
savings have resulted from (a) greater than anticipated 
interest accrual on equipment lease financing reserve 
funds, which have been used to make debt service 
payments in lieu of budgeted General Fund monies, and (b) 
surplus equipment lease financing reserve funds. 

3. According to Mr. Rosenfield, San Francisco's capital 
match requirement for FY 2000-2001 would be $1,360,864. 
Mr. Rosenfield states that such funds would be requested in 
the FY 2000-2001 budget. Mr. Rosenfield also states that 
the Mayor's Office is working with Ms. Carmen Clark of the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Transportation Authority to identify non-General Fund 
sources to pay for Caltrain capital improvement projects in 
future years. 

4. According to Mr. Jim Gallagher of the JPB, the proposed 
Caltrain capital improvement projects are intended to 
improve the Caltrain infrastructure, resulting in service 
improvements. Mr. Gallagher states that ndership on 
Caltrain. which provides commuter trains between Gilroy 
and San Francisco, has increased by 30 percent since 1992, 
and currently is increasing by approximately 6 percent per 
month. According to Mr. Gallagher, commuters travelling 
from San Francisco to jobs in Silicon Valley represent a 
major increase in overall Caltrain ndership. 

5. As noted above. Attachment I contains a list of the 
proposed Caltrain capital improvement projects and the 
associated costs. Mr. Gallagher advises that JPB will 
follow competitive bidding procedures and award the 
capital improvement project contracts to the firms that 
submit the lowest bid. 

Recommendation: Approve the requested supplemental appropriation. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

U5 



FEB. -16' OO(WED) 09:58 SAMTRANS TEL: 1 415 508 6281 Attachment I 

Page 1 of 9 

Caltrain Capital Budget 2000 & 2001 
FY 2000 &. 2001 CALTRAIN PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS 

The following is a listing of Capital projects included in the current budget period. A brief 
description is presented for each project along with the total estimated cost to complete. 

The extent to which capital projects impact the FY 2000 and 2001 operating budget is closely tied 
to Caltrain's Contract Operations (Amtrak) costs. The current arrangement involves a fixed-price 
management contract which will be in effect until June 2000. Projects in the FY 2000 and 
2001 capital budget will result in higher or lower operating and maintenance costs to the contract 
operator in the near term. Therefore, those costs or benefits resulting from current projects will 
likely be factored into the next contract. At present, associated dollar amounts have not been 
determined for most projects. However, for those projects for which a dollar value for operating 
budget impact is not available, an assessment has been made as to whether its ultimate completion 
will result in higher, lower, or no significant impact in the operating budget. 

1. STATIONS & INTERMODAL ACCESS - FY 2000 &. 2001 BUDGET: S25.8S0.190 



PROJECT TITLE: Platform & Trackwork-Millbrae Intennodal 



DESCRIPTION: Construction of Caltrain elements of the Caltrain - BART Millbrae 

Intermodal Station. Project elements include crossovers, two additional 
boarding platforms and sidings on the east side of the Caltrain tracks. 

COST ESTIMATE: $3,000,000 

OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: No significant impact. 



PROJECT TITLE: Station Rehabilitation - Varions Stations 



DESCRIPTION: Rehabilitation of elements of various Caltrain stations. 

COST ESTIMATE: $780,000 

OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: No significant impact. 



FEB. -16' 00 (WED) 09:58 SAMTRANS 



TEL : 1 415 508 6281 



Attachment 
Pase 1 of \ 



Caltrain Capital Budget 2000 & 2001 



PROJECT TITLE: Platform & Trackwork - SSF 



DESCRIPTION: Rebuilding of the South San Francisco Station south of the existing station, 
to include: outside boarding platforms; access from both sides of the rail 
line; easy shuttle access from the east side of the tracks; a grade separated 
pedestrian crossing; and relocated UP freight tracks. 

COST ESTIMATE: $7,150,000 

OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: No significant impact. 



PROJECT TITLE: Platform & Trackwork - Broadway 



DESCRIPTION: Rebuilding the Broadway (Burlingame) Station south of the existing 

stauon, to include outside boarding platforms and a third track. The third 
track between the new Millbrae Stauon and Broadway Station will enable 
express trains to pass local trains. 

COST ESTIMATE: S6.050.000 

OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: No significant impact. 



PROJECT TITLE: Platform &. Trackwork - Diridon 



DESCRIPTION: Rebuilding the tracks, platforms, terminal facilities and pedestrian subways 

at Diridon Station, along with realignment and rehabilitation of yard tracks. The project will 
improve operations for all station users (Caltrain, Amtrak, Capitol Corridor, ACE and UPRR), 
assist the VTA in completing the Vasona LRT project and improve the speed at which trains can 
operate into and out of the terminal. 

COST ESTIMATE: $4,825,000 

OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: No significant impact. 



Ll 



FEB- - 16' 00 (WED) 09 : 59 SAMTRANS TEL: 1 415 508 6281 Attachment I 

Page 3 of 9 

Caltrain Capital Budget 2000 & 2001 



PROJECT TITLE: Platform & Trackwork - San Bruno 



DESCRIPTION: The San Bruno Caltrain station at Linden Avenue will be closed while 
construction of the BART SFO extension is underway. Once the BART 
project is complete, a new station wil] be built at the original location or 
anothd location in the city. This project will begin once the station site has 
been selected. 

COST ESTIMATE: $2,750,000 

OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: No significant impact. 



PROJECT TITLE: ADA Improvements - Various Stations 



DESCRIPTION: ADA improvements consistent with applicable needs. The program will be 
assessed as part of an ongoing effort to provide stations improvements, 
enhancements and ADA-specific improvements such as Talking Signs and 
PA/Visual Messaging Systems, 

COST ESTIMATE: $1,295,190 

OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: No significant impact. Potential annual O & M associated 

with IT. facilities. 



2. RIGHT OF WAY - FY 2000 & 2001 BUDGET: S32.150.574 



PROJECT TITLE: Systemwide Track Rehabilitation 



DESCRIPTION: This project consists of the rehabilitation of Caltrain infrastructure such as: 
replacement of rails and ties; bridge repairs and replacement; tunnel 
repairs; maintenance of way facilities; and rolling stock purchases; and 
improvements related to the Fiber Optic Backbone Network. 

COST ESTIMATE: $21,000,000 

OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: No significant impact. Is expected to decrease annual O &. M 

(Maintenance of Way) expenses. 



L9. 



Attachment 
FEB. - 16' 00 (WED) 09: 59 SAMTRANS TEL: 1 415 508 6281 Page A ' of 9 

Caltrain Capital Budget 2000 & 2001 



PROJECT TITLE: Centralized Traffic Control (Signal Upgrade) 



DESCRIPTION: Installation of a centralized traffic control (CTC) signaling system on the 
segment of the Caltrain line that is currently controlled by an antiquated 
automatic block signaling system 

COST ESTIMATE: $ 1 0,044,324 

OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: Expected annual O & M expenses to be determined. 



PROJECT TITLE: Centralized Traffic Control (Communications) 



DESCRIPTION: Installation of a new data radio system to provide a reliable 

"communications link" between signal control points in the field and the 
centralized dispatch center. The new system will be connected to two 
mountain top base stations that will provide overlapping coverage of the 
data radio sites. 

COST ESTIMATE: $1,106,250 

OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: Forecasted annual reduction of $50,000 in operating costs. 

3. ROLLING STOCK - FY 2000 & 2001 BUDGET: S8.331.000 



PROJECT TITLE: Passenger Car Rehabilitation 



DESCRIPTION: Project includes the mid-life rehabilitation of the rail car fleet as 

recommended by the manufacturer. Includes the rehabilitation of the 
chassis, braking systems, interior and exterior components. 

COST ESTIMATE: $8,000,000 

OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: Expected reducu'on in annual O & M expenses associated 

with refurbished equipment. 



LQ 



FEB. - 16' 00 (WED) 09 : 59 SAMTRANS TEL: 1 415 508 6281 ^|chm£ntl 



Page 5 of 9 
Caltrain Capital Budget 2000 & 2001 



PROJECT TITLE: Amtrak Non Revenue Vehicles 



DESCRIPTION: This project covers the contractually mandated replacement of non-revenue 
support vehicles owned by the JPB and operated by Amtrak. 

COST ESTIMATE: SI 81 ,000 

OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: N/A 



PROJECT TITLE: Locomotive GPS System 



DESCRIPTION: Acquisition of 25 global positioning units (GPS) for installation in Caltrain 
locomotives. Included in the project is software and communications 
linkages to send information from the GPS system to PC's at Amtrak and 
the JPB. 

COST ESTIMATE: $150,000 

OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: Annual program management costs expected to 

accommodate service improvements. 



4. OPERATIONAL FACILITIES & EQUIPMENT - FY 2000 & 2001 BUDGET: 
$11/753.953 



PROJECT TITLE: Amtrak Miscellaneous Capital Improvements 



DESCRIPTION: This project consists of contractually-mandated capital investments 

required to support additional rolling stock and new technology, such as: 
maintenance equipment for locomotives; pans and special tools for 
locomotives; and spare parts to support Eonderosa/BART project impacts. 

COST ESTIMATE: $366,000 

OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: N/A 



FEB. -16' 00 (WED) 09:59 SAMTRANS 



TEL:1 415 508 6281 



Attachment. I 
Page b or 9 



Caltrain Capital Budget 2000 & 2001 



PROJECT TITLE: Fare Collection (Ticket Vending Machines) 



DESCRIPTION: Phase 3 of the Ticket Vending Machine Program. Additional machines will 
be necessary system-wide as demand for service is monitored. Phase 3 will 
implement ticket vending machines (TVM'S) at stations with increased 
fare collection needs. 

COST ESTIMATE: S500.000 

OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: Significant O & M expense associated wi'h fare collection 

system. Amount to be determined once system is in 
operation. Anticipated reducu'on in on-board service 
collection expenses and improved fare collection practices. 



PROJECT TITLE: Parking Revenue Equipment 



DESCRIPTION: Phase 2 of a project started in FY 2000 under the "Station Rehabilitation 

program. This project would provide 40 units of automated parking 
revenue collection equipment at lower volume and non-market rate lots. 
The equipment would be capable of variable rates and automated 
information reporting. 

COST ESTIMATE: S200.000 

OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: No significant impact. 



PROJECT TITLE: Caltrain Maintenance Facility 



DESCRIPTION: This project consists of constructing a new maintenance facility for 

Caltrain at the Lenzen site in San Jose. The project includes rebuilding the 
College Park Station slightly to the North of the current location. 

COST ESTIMATE: $10,307,953 

OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: Significant impact. Operating plan to be determined. 



51 



FEB. -16" OO(WED) 10:00 SAMTRANS TEL: 1 415 508 6281 Attachment I 

Paee 7 of 9 

Caltrain Capital Budget 2000 & 2001 



PROJECT TITLE: "Warehousing - ROW Equipment & Spares 



DESCRIPTION: Storage space for signal materials to be removed and salvaged from the 
Ponderosa and the Ralston-Holly-Harbor project. These facilities include 
signal masts, cases case components, signal heads, gates and grade 
crossing warning devices. 

COST ESTIMATE: $200,000 

OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: No significant impact. 



PROJECT TITLE: Amtrak Office Module Replacement 



DESCRIPTION: Replacement of two work modules located at the San Jose or San Francisco 
terminals. All office modules are reaching the end of their useful lives and 
must be evaluated for replacement. All efforts will be made to extend 
useful life first. 

COST ESTIMATE: $120,000 

OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: No significant impact. 



PROJECT TITLE: Rail Operations Scheduling & Planning Software 



DESCRIPTION: Acquisition of PC-based software, training and documentation to develop 

and analyze future Caltrain service scenarios, schedules and costs. 

COST ESTIMATE: $50,000 

OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT; No significant impact. May result in cost savings associated 

with service development efficiencies. 



FEB. - 1 6' 00 (WED) 10:00 SAMTRANS TEL 1415 508 6281 Attachment I 

Page 8 of r» 

Caltraln Capital Budget 2000 & 2001 



PROJECT TITLE: Amtrak SCO Office Security Improvements 



DESCRIPTION: This project is requested based on Amtrak security audit and 

recommendations. The project would improve security at Amtrak dispatch 
center by adding combination lock entry door system to trainmaster office, 
and changing current sliding window to bullet frroof window with 
document transfer and speaker system. 

COST ESTIMATE: S 1 0,000 

OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: No significant impact. 

S. OTHER PROJECTS - FY 2000 & 2001 BUDGET: S5.939.97l 



PROJECT TITLE: Capital Program Development 



DESCRIPTION: This project fund was established to ensure that program development costs 

could be captured as a capital cost as opposed to an operating expense. It 
covers such activities as capital budget and programming process, gran: 
development, capital tracking and development systems and internal 
program meeting costs. 

COST ESTIMATE: S400.000 

OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: 5200,000 reduction in operating costs (wages and benefits). 



PROJECT TITLE: Capital Project Development 



DESCRIPTION: This project fund was established to ensure that project development costs 
could be captured as a capital cost as opposed to an operating expense. The 
development of accurate estimates and project assessments is essential to 
ensure good project development It covers such activities as initial capital 
project cost estimates and development; and internal program meeting 
costs. 

COST ESTIMATE: $1,000,000 

OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: No significant impact. 



FEB. -16' OO(WED) 10:00 SAMTRANS TEL: 1 415 508 6281 Attachment I 

Page 9 of 9 

Caltrain Capital Budget 2000 & 2001 



PROJECT TITLE: SF DTX EIR Completion 



DESCRIPTION: Completion of the San Francisco Downtown Extension Environmental 
Impact Report. 

COST ESTIMATE: $564,971 

OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: No significant impact. 



PROJECT TITLE: Electrification - EIR / PE 



DESCRIPTION: Electrification of Caltrain - Environmental Impact Report and Planning & 
Engineering. 

COST ESTIMATE: $3,375,000 

OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: No significant impact. 



PROJECT TITLE: Small Projects 



DESCRIPTION: This project fund was established to ensure that small projects that are 
necessary, but do not warrant a separate budget line item, could be 
completed It covera miscellaneous improvements that generally cost 
between $5,000 - $20,000, such as equipment and other facility needs. 

COST ESTIMATE: $600,000 

OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT: Minor O & M budget savings. 



FEB. -16' 00 (WED) 10:00 SAMTRANS 



TEL: 1 415 508 6281 



Attachment 
Page 1 of 2 



J ° ? a 

Istl 
I ill] 

iilil 



sssss 



$88 



• s c ° 



88 



?? 



J.I 



o «* » 



>^1 
Hi 

Ell 



I 



5, a I 

ill 

i 



" P ■» 
US 

ill 

fit 
51! 



8 3 8 n .8 ji , 



5SS3 1%H 

gSSSsSSS 



8 3 

Is 



3 8 S .8 S 3 | S 

1 1 1 I 5 LU_i_ 



5 3 



% I I I 



[11 

of ? 

III 

e 



= 5*3 



! 

! 

! 

W 



II] 

si : 









!l 



ffif.Ell 



c i ? » i 



I? i 



.1 



I 



ill 






> - A^ ■ ■ m 






2 8 3 8 888 



s i § I s 8 § 

: : : 1 1 -5 



2 8 3 8 i if 

a ! I • • 1 5 



ii 

81 8 



8 8 S 

I Ii 



i § 
i '8 



Caltrain Capital Budget 
Local Match Requirements 



Attachment II 
tage Z of 2 



Plan Total 1999-00 2000-01 



Required local match 10,466,591 5,256,000 5.210,591 

Fare box capital reserve 3,384,000 2,256,000 1,128,000 

Member agency contributions 7,082,591 3,000,000 4,082,591 

San Francisco 2,360,864 1,000,000 1,360,864 

San Mateo 2,360,864 1,000,000 1,360,864 

Santa Clara 2,360,864 1,000,000 1,360,864 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 5 - File 00-0272 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Description: 



Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 

Ordinance appropriating $600,000 of the Water 
Department Enterprise Fund unappropriated surplus fund 
balance to fund initial clean-up activities of San Francisco 
Public Utibties Commission Bayside property, located west 
of the Dumbarton Bridge, for Fiscal Year 1999-2000. 

$600,000 

Water Department Enterprise Fund unappropriated 
surplus fund balance 

The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 
leased 17 acres of PUC Bayside property to the Peninsula 
Sportsman's Club from 1939 until 1994. The property i> 
located west of the Dumbarton Bridge, next to the city of 
East Palo Alto. The Peninsula Sportsman's Club operated 
a trap and skeet range that resulted in the accumulation of 
lead shot and clay pigeon debris. In 1994 the San Francisco 
Bay Regional Water Control Board issued a cleanup and 
abatement order to the Peninsula Sportsman's Club. As 
the property owner, the PUC was named the secondary 
responsible party. In 1996 the PUC evicted the Peninsula 
Sportsman's Club from the subject property and shortly 
afterward, the Peninsula Sportsman's Club declared 
bankruptcy, leaving no recoverable assets. Therefore, the 
PUC became solely responsible for the cleanup of the 
subject PUC property. Due to administrative delays, 
neither the PUC nor the Regional Water Control Board 
pursued the cleanup and abatement order from the time 
the Peninsula Sportsman's Club was evicted in 1996 until 
July of 1999. In July of 1999 the Regional Water Control 
Board issued a letter to the PUC, requiring the PUC to 
begin the cleanup. The PUC submitted a report to the 
Regional Water Control Board on November 1, 1999, 
detailing the results of the PUC's site investigation. 

The PUC has begun the process of complying with the 
Regional Water Control Board's enforcement action. The 
PUC and the Regional Water Control Board have not yet 
negotiated the full extent of the necessary cleanup. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

37 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Approximately 25 acres of PUC land have been 
contaminated, and additional land, including a salt pond 
belonging to a neighboring landowner, has been 
contaminated. According to the PUC, total cleanup costs 
may be up to $12,000,000, depending on the amount of soil 
to be removed to a hazardous waste disposal site and on 
needed cleanup efforts at the adjacent salt pond. 

The immediate cleanup costs will be approximately 
$3,100,000, of which $600,000 are the subject of this 
supplemental appropriation ordinance, and an additional 
$2,500,000 will be requested in the FY 2000-2001 PUC 
budget. 

The first clean-up project includes the removal of 2,600 tons 
of clay pigeon debris from the subject property. The project 
was identified as a priority because the debris is 
contaminated with lead and other toxins 1 . The clean up 
will start upon approval of the proposed supplemental 
appropriation ordinance and will cost approximately 
$600,000. 

Budget: The summary budget for the proposed supplemental 

appropriation is as follows: 

Wetlands Delineation $ 6,600 

Archaeological Consultants 4,924 

Habitat Assessment 10,265 
Fence Construction (Protection of 

Endangered Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse) 4,000 
Sampling and Characterization of 

Debris Piles for Disposal 10.170 
Clay Pigeon Excavation and 

Staging 45,092 

Trucking Costs ' 95,000 

Landfill Disposal of Debris Piles 365,274 

Public Affairs Support 71.920 

Total $613,244 

Attachment I, provided by the PUC, contains details to 
support the summary budget noted above. According to 
Mr. John Mundy of the PUC, funds totaling $1 



1 The clay pigeon debris contains polynuclear aromatics, a carcinogenic substance similar to 
asphalt but less stable, which can contaminate the soil and groundwater. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

($613,244 less $600,000) are available in the FY 1999-2000 
PUC budget. 

Comments: 1. According to Mr. Mundy, the PUC selected five 

environmental service contractors through a Request for 
Proposal (RFP) process in May of 1999 to perform 
environmental work for the PUC on an as-needed basis. 
Three of the five contractors would perform such work on 
the subject property as follows: 

- Baseline Environmental, Inc would identify wetlands' 
boundaries, and design mitigation measures to ensure 
careful control of contaminant removal activities at the 
subject property at an estimated cost of $6,600. 

- Tetra Tech, Inc. would (a) construct a fence to protect the 
endangered Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse habitat at an 
estimated cost of $4,000, (b) perform an habitat assessment 
of possible threatened and endangered plant and animal 
species at the subject site at an estimated cost of $10,265, 
and (c) subcontract with PAE Environmental Services, Inc.. 
to conduct an investigation of possible archaeological and 
historical sites on the subject property it an estimated cost 
of $4,924. 

- Camp, Dresser, and McKee. Inc. would sample potentially 
contaminated soil on the subject property and prepare a 
technical memorandum at an estimated cost of $10,170. 

2. Mr. Mundy reports that PUC has budgeted $71,920 for 
public affairs services, which would be provided by Tony 
Wessling, a consultant currently providing the PUC with 
public affairs support (Attachment II). Mr. Mundy states 
that such public affairs services have three components. 
According to Mr. Mundy. the first two components of the 
public affairs program were developed by the PUC to 
respond to the East Palo Alto community's concern 
regarding the impact of the contamination on their 
community. Additionally, the third component of the public 
affairs program is required by the Regional Water Control 
Board. First, the PUC would provide outreach to the East 
Palo Alto community, which has formerly had access to the 
unfenced subject property, to address their environmental 
concerns. Second, removal of the contaminated soil requires 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

transporting the soil through the East Palo Alto 
community. The public affairs consultant would provide 
notification to the community and organize public meetings 
for the community to express their concern regarding the 
transportation of the contaminated materials. Third, the 
Regional Water Control Bjard requires that the PUC 
conduct neighborhood meetings to discuss the PUC's efforts 
to clean-up the subject property and to respond to 
comments from the community prior to further remediation 
efforts (after the clay pigeon debris clean-up) in FY 2000- 
2001. 

3. Of the $613,245 in initial clean-up costs for the clay 
pigeon debris, an estimated $505,368 would include 
excavation and staging of the clay pigeon debris ($42,092), 
transporting of the debris to a hazardous waste landfill 
($95,000), and debris disposal at the landfill ($365,274). 
According to Mr. Mundy, the PUC will use Department of 
Public Works (DPW) hazardous material incident response 
contractors, selected by DPW through an RFP process to 
perform such work on an as-needed basis 2 . According to Mr. 
Steve Mullinnix of DPW, DPW will obtain quotes for the 
cost of such work from the as-needed contractors after the 
contaminated soil at the subject property has been 
characterized and negotiations with the Regional Water 
Control Board regarding the extent of soil removal have 
been completed. The PUC plans to begin such work in May 
of 2000. The Budget Analyst recommends that $505,368 of 
the requested $600,000 supplemental appropriation be 
placed on reserve, pending submission of budget details. 

Recommendation: Approve appropriation of the requested $600,000 and 
reserve $505,368, as noted in Comment No. 5. 



2 According to Mr. Steve Mullinnix of the DPW, the DPW has issued an RFP for as-needed 
hazardous material incident response contractors and responses are due on March 22, 2000. 
The DPW expects to select such as-needed contractors in April of 2000. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment I 























TO 13 


■o o 




13 






T3 






aj a> 


4) 0) 




i 






1) 






13 13 


13 13 




13 




u 


13 






D u 


01 0) 


10 


IB 




CO 


0) 






0) 0) 


a> at 




0) 






■ 






c c 


c c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 






in in 


en en 


o 
















ro a> 


ID .1 




CO 






CO 






O O 


O O 


5 


U 


5 


5 









D D 


D D 


a. 


3 


a. 


0. 


3 






a. a. 


a. a 


a 


0. 





O 


a. 






jc c 


jc £ 


jc 


JC 


j= 


JC 


JC 






a> en 




a 


■ 


01 


01 


- 






3 3 


3 3 


3 


3 


3 


3 








o o 


o o 


o 


o 


O 


O 



























S £ 


JC JC 


r. 


JC 


JZ 


JC 


^ 










































o •*» 


o m 


O CM CO 




O 


*r 





<• 
CN 




O CM 


O <£> 


OOIOI 




O 


f^ 


CM 




(D CO 


O CM 


in tt o 




O 


CM 


a> 




(O tj-* 


V o" 


I-" CO V 


o 


m' 


in" 






<s> </> 


</> «- 




</> 


01 


to 




m 

•A 


c 


















o 




































u 


















< 




3 

o 






a 








"(5 




2 






„ 








> 


■^ 


to 






13 








o 


o 
a. 

0) 

a: 


0) 






" 








E 

o 

0Z 


2. 
I 




E 


3 


c 









13 


JC 




— c 




1 






E 

C 

£ 


c 
co 

o 
3 

13 


m (5 
2 5 <n 

• Is J 
S w ;> 

2 o o 
a> *~ < 

8§? 

"no. 

S U. Q. 

O •— TO 

> ° H 


CO 


■A c 

(0 

|l 

Q S 


CO 


"J 0. 
" 

c 50 
« 1-- 






£) 

3 

o 

"c 

CO 

E 


41 ™ 

CO .= 
c c "5 
'— .2 5> 

c ™ o 

O ~ — 

(^ 0) ro 

» Q 5> 

ra c o 

- ffl 0) 

a = jc 
5 § < 


c 
a 

to m 

\ % \ 

§5| & 


32 

• 3 

• c 
.2 ^ 

J3 -0 
c 


u 

JO 
3 
O 
O 
CM 

(7T "to 

• en 
O -o 

11 

II 


*T re 
ai re 

II 

5 


r 

a 
a 
3 
10 
m 




in 

r 
o 
a 
(ft 


« .2 o 

"o 3 in 

o <- 'o> 
a "> o 
w § o 

■ooin 


5 2 1 £ 

x c > c 

w o a. o 

C O Q O 


Q to 
■•- 
c 

s °- 

° E 

3 w 


Q — 

" 2 

O C3 
Q.<° 






a 


a> 


o 







(0 


3 
</> 

'c 

V 
Q. 


o 
O 

E 


a 
a 

c 
to 

13 

c 


■ 
a 
a. 

>. 

10 


■ 

10 
10 

JC 


CO 

u 

3 


O 

C 
■ 


< 

3 


O 
O 




< 


III 


O 





£ 


_l 


a 


*- 



c in 
c o 



CO <n 

— in 

- </i 

J3 U 

•g ^ 

_ 2? 

<D 5 



J3 - ^ 

0. <5 o 

9 ! 13 

& ■ a 

■? E 2 



co m 



a 2 ^ 

"I Q. O J3 

O "13 3 

™ c o - ° 
- 2 K o o 
? 3S a - ° ~ 

^oa 

* .2 in 

31 c ~ 

E ~: ** 
o tn 

O 13 

o >. 

— ' - c 

A S " 



13 "5 



c 


E 


B 
PJ 








n 






^ 


c 


11 



O 13 tft C: 



3 ca-o 

^ '5. < 

. >.(T 

= S U 



U — 

1 O c <S 
1 CE O U 



41 



FEB-17-2000 09=21 



PUC BERM 



P. 06/06 

Attachment II 



PENINSULA SPORTSMAN'S CLUB 

PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMPONENT 

Tutu: ikJUMinw 



Davaitc Fansnas* 

Maet with PUC staff 
Ganania ana 6* Fact sn*«i 
Clarical Support 
Malaria* 

CtMranaaj wwi Carga] San 
Masting Prap 
Cargil Uaaanoa (2) 
CJarteil Support 

Anoncy Coorokattan 

Agancy Coonsnaoon 
Cancai Support 



t 118.00 
f 118.00 
( U CO 


( 

( 
* 


030.00 
1.840.00 
220.00 

tsoooo 


i 110.00 

1 116 00 

J 54.00 


> 

s 


920.00 
820 CO 
220.00 


t 118.00 
I 86.00 


t 

$ 


020.00 
220.00 



Tnk2: Inttrlm Hamoval Action Puotte N«fflattat/Otrtra»ch 

Davalop Fact SHU 

Moat «*inPuc salt C2paja prep) « 

Generate and Edi Fad 3f« 18 

OarteaJ 3upoon 4 



Coaranjia MoDflcaasru^aapaMe 
Oaveiop Mating uai 
AOnnntfflf Maong 
Claneal Support 
Fleaponaa Aeemtaa 
Matanau 

Agency Coonanatlcn 

Masting* (2 0ut prep) 
Oertcai Support 

AofllOonal C«nvnjnica*ana Support 



Tuk 3: Presenting, RarrvadlaJ AJtarnaJNa 

Oavwoe Fact snaet 

Meat wttn PuC Sufi (3 ptut prep) 
Osnanue ana Eau F*a SHeet 
DOrjnjklM Mada napenaa 
Ctaflcsi Support 
MthaMi 

SfcJuvwIo* IdonMeaeon/Outreacft 

hbMl «* PUC Staff (3 plus prop) 
SaweaaaCooranati Comas wim Sakanctoare 
Summary Mam) Fta PotsnOal Stttenotoar Concern 
Gene* Support 

Puou Msaung 

CoonSnatfl Masting LoglAHCS 

Mealing Ulnutsa 

Foaonwjpn^aapoAae id Sakanoioar Concama 

WraTfaaMmm 

uueruua 



1 116.00 


J 920.00 


1 116 00 


( 1.840.00 


{ MOO 


t 220.00 




taoooo 


6118.00 


t 4.600.00 


S 116.00 


I 82000 


1 6800 


( 220.00 


(11800 


( 4.800 00 




1600 00 


3 116.00 


I 2,760.00 


( 86.00 


J 22000 


( 118.00 


S 2.-80 00 




(28,860.00 



(118.00 


( I. 380.00 


(116J30 


( 4.600.00 


J 116,00 


( 3^*0 00 


( 66.00 


( 440.00 




( 600.00 


( 116.00 


( 1,3*0.00 


(116.00 


( 3,M0.OO 


(118.00 


( 2.780.00 


( 86.00 


( 44000 


(11100 


( 2.780 00 


( 6600 


( 8*0 00 


(116 00 


( 3.660 00 




(100 00 




(600 X 



Tii.k 4: Media Control During Negcrtlattorui for Remedial Altamujves 

AsW4oaiMd Sarvicca 180 (118.00 



( 11.400.00 



% 71,820.00 



TOTAL P. 06 



V) 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 4 - File 00-0271 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Superior Court 

Ordinance appropriating $558,000 from the General Fund 
Reserve to fund the increased costs of indigent defense in 
adult criminal and juvenile delinquency cases for the Trial 
Court for Fiscal Year 1999-2000, providing for ratification 
of action previously taken. 

$558,000 

General Fund Reserve 

The proposed ordinance would appropriate $558,000 to 
fund increased Indigent Defense Program costs due to (a) 
increased private attorney costs, resulting from increased 
case load, and <b> proposed increased reimbursement rates 
for private investigators paid through the Indigent Defense 
Program. Of the requested $558,000 supplemental 
appropriation, $508,000 would pay for increased costs for 
Indigent Defense Program private attorneys, resulting from 
increased caseload, and $50,000 would pay for a proposed 
$5 per hour increase in the reimbursement rate for private 
investigators. 

The increased expenditures for private defense attorneys 
have resulted from the increased number of indigent 
individuals assigned private defense attorneys through the 
Indigent Defense Program. Ordinarily, the Public 
Defender's Office provides defense attorneys to indigent 
individuals who have been charged with a crime. If the 
Public Defender's Office determines that a conflict of 
interest would result if the Public Defender were to provide 
the defense attorney, the Superior Court 1 appoints a 
private defense attorney through the Superior Court's 
Indigent Defense Program. The Superior Court pays the 
fees for such private defense attorneys at a predetermined 
rate. As noted in Comment No. 1. the Indigent Defense 
Program expenditures increased between June of 1998 
through September of 1999. From March of 1998 until 



1 The City's Superior and Municipal Courts, formerly titled "Trial Court", are now under the heading 
Superior Court of California. County of San Francisco". 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

29 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



October 1, 1999 2 , the Public Defender's Office provided 
attorneys in only three of the four courtrooms that held 
arraignment hearings. Therefore, the Court assigned 
private defense attorneys through the Indigent Defense 
Program to indigent individuals who had arraignment 
neanngs in the courtroom that did not have attorneys from 
the Public Defenders Office. Approval of the proposed 
ordinance would appropriate $508,000 to fund increased 
expenditures, resulting from the increased number of 
indigent individuals who have been assigned private 
defense attorneys through the Indigent Defense Program. 

Additionally, approval of the proposed ordinance would 
appropriate $50,000 to pay for a proposed increase in the 
hourly rate for private investigators, working with the 
private defense attorneys. Court-appointed private 
attorneys can petition the Court to provide funds to pay for 
private investigators on behalf of the indigent client. 
Currently, the rate for such private investigators, which 
was set in 1984, is $35 per hour. The subject ordinance 
would fund a $5 per hour rate increase, increasing the 
private investigator rate from $35 per hour to $40 per hour. 
The requested $50,000 appropriation would provide a $5 
per hour rate increase for 10.000 hours of private 
investigator time, from January 1, 2000, through June 30, 
2000. 

San Francisco began participation in the State Trial Court 
Funding Program in FY 1988-89. Each year the State 
Legislature determines the level of funding to Counties 
participating in the State Trial Court Funding Program 
and allocates State funds to each County's Superior Court. 
However, the County retained responsibility for providing 
private defense attorneys to indigent persons charged with 
a crime. Therefore, San Francisco's Indigent Defense 
Program is funded by the General Fund and the requested 
supplemental appropriation would be funded from the 
General Fund Reserve. 



2 According to Mr. Neal Taniguchi of the Superior Court. Indigent Defense Program expenditures lag 

3 months behind increased caseload due to delays in private attorney billings and reimbursements. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

in 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Comments: 1. According to Mr. Neal Tamguchi of the Superior Court, 

between June of 1998 and October of 1999, Indigent 
Defense Program expenditures for private defense 
attorneys increased due to increased caseload. During that 
time period, approximately one-quarter of the indigent 
individuals who would have been assigned an attorney from 
the Public Defender's Office were instead assigned a 
private defense attorney through the Indigent Defense 
Program. The Superior Court has four courtrooms that hold 
arraignment hearings for individuals charged with crimes. 
For the specified time period, of these four courtrooms 
(Departments 9. 10, 11, and I'D the Public Defender's Office 
assigned attorneys to Departments 9. 10, and 12. but did 
not have sufficient staff to assign attorneys to Department 
11. Therefore, indigent individuals who had arraignment 
hearings in Departments 9. 10, and 12 were assigned an 
attorney from the Public Defender's Office, and indigent 
individuals who had arraignment hearings in Department 
11 wore assigned private attorneys through the Indigent 
Defense Program. The Public Defender's Office received 9 
additional staff (8 attorneys and 1 private investigator) to 
represent indigent individuals in the FY 1999-2000 budget, 
and as of October 1, 1999, was able to provide attorneys for 
indigent individuals with arraignment hearings in 
Department 11. Therefore, since October 1, 1999. the 
Indigent Defense Program provides private defense 
attorneys to indigent individuals if the Public Defender 
determines that a conflict of interest exists, but no longer 
provides private defense attorney- to indigent individuals 
arraigned in Department 11. 

As shown in the Attachment, provided by the Superior 
Court, in FY 1998-99. the Indigent Defense Program paid 
for 5.023 cases, which is 902 cases, or 21.9 percent, greater 
than the 4.212 cases paid in FY 1997-98. Mr. Taniguchi 
states that the projected number of cases in FY 1999-2000 
is 3.980. According to Mr. Taniguchi. although the Public 
Defender did not assign attorneys to Department 11 until 
October 1, 1999, expenditures for the first three months of 
FY" 1999-2000 (July 1. 1999 through September 30, 1999) 
were less than anticipated. Therefore, the Superior Court 
does not expect increased expenditures, resulting from 
increased Indigent Defense Program caseload, in FY" 1999- 
2000. According to Mr. Taniguchi. the proposed 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

31 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



supplemental appropriation is due solely to the carry-over 
of unpaid private attorneys' bills from FY 1998-99. 

As shown in the Attachment, in FY 1998-99 the Court 
overspent the $5,900,000 budget for indigent defense by 
$254,000. According to the Controller's Office, the 
additional $254,000 expenditure for indigent defense was 
funded from surpluses within the FY 1998-99 Superior 
Court budget. Additionally, Mr. Taniguchi states in the 
Attachment, that $140,000 in defense attorneys' bills in FY 
1998-99 were submitted to the Controller but not 
authorized for payment because the appropriation had been 
exhausted. Mr. Taniguchi estimates that an additional 
$360,000 to $460,000 in unpaid defense attorney bills were 
carried into FY 1999-2000 and paid in the first three 
months of the fiscal year with the FY 1999-2000 
appropriation. Mr. Taniguchi states that the expected 
shortfall for FY 1999-2000 is $511,000 (estimated 
expenditures of $6,411,000 less $5,900,000 approved 
budget). 

2. The proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance also 
requests $50,000 to fund a proposed $5 per hour rate 
increase for private investigators, working with private 
defense attorneys through the Indigent Defense Program, 
increasing the hourly rate for private investigators from 
$35 per hour to $40 per hour, an increase of 14.3 percent. 
The requested $50,000 supplemental rate increase would 
fund the $5 per hour rate increase for 10,000 hours of 
private investigator time for January 1, 2000 through June 
30, 2000. According to Mr. Taniguchi, the $35 per hour 
rate for private investigators was established in 1984 and 
has not been increased since. 

Based on data provided by Mr. Taniguchi, the Indigent 
Defense Program expended $892,625 for 25,503 hours of 
private investigator time in FY 1997-98 and $963,790 for 
27,536 hours of private investigator time in FY 1998-99, an 
8 percent increase. As previously noted, the Superior Court 
expects that Indigent Defense Program caseload and 
expenditures in FY 1999-2000 will return to the caseload 
and expenditure level of FY 1997-98. Therefore, if private 
investigator hours in FY 2000-2001 are equal to private 
investigator hours in FY 1997-98 (25,503), the City's 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

32 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



increased costs resulting from the proposed $5 per hour 
rate increase would be approximately $127,515 in FY 2000- 
2001. 

According to additional data provided by Mr. Tamguchi, the 
average hourly salary, including fringe benefits, for Public 
Defender Investigators (which includes both Investigators 
and Senior Investigators) in FY 1999-2000 is $31.87. Mr 
Tamguchi states that Public Defender's Office estimated 
indirect and administrative costs equal >_'^ 75 per hour, 
resulting in a total hourly Public Defender Investigator rate 
of $54.62 per hour. Mr. Tamguchi states that the Public 
Defender Investigator rate of per hour (which 

includes both salary and fringe benefits as well as 
administrative costs) is 56 percent greater than the current 
$35 per hour rate paid to private investigators through the 
Indigent Defense Program. Additionally, the estimated 
$54.62 per hour r 16.5 percent greater than the 

proposed $40 per hour rate. Mr. Tamguchi was unable to 
provide data on rates paid to private investigators in other 
Bay Area Counties or by private sector attorneys. 

3. The Budget Analyst has reviewed the actual and 
projected expenditures for indigent defense on a monthly 
basis for Fiscal Years 1998-99 (12 months) and 1999-2000 
(seven months; from July 1. 1999 through January 31. 
2000). However, as explained in Mr. Taniguchi's 
memorandum (Attachment) the Trial Court is unable to 
provide an accounting of the number or the amount of such 
billings that were not paid in FY 1998-99 and held over to 
be paid from FY 1999-2000 appropriations. Therefore, it is 
not possible to determine whether or not the Trial Court's 
projections are reasonable at this time. 

The Budget Analyst therefore recommends that one half of 
the $508,000 amount requested for indigent defense 
expenditures, or $254,000. be reserved pending additional 
data for such actual expenditures during the remainder of 
FY* 1999-2000. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Recommendation: 1. Approve the supplemental appropriation in the 
requested amount of $508,000 for indigent defense 
expenditures, placing $254,000 on reserve. 



2. Approval of the $50,000 portion of the request to pay for 
a proposed increase in the hourly rate for private 
investigators from $35 to $40 per hour is a policy matter for 
the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



FEB 24 '00 04 :52PM 




P. 1/2 
Attachment 



Superior Court of California Pape x of : 

County of San Francisco 



ALAN CARLSON NEALl TaniQUCH, 

Cuff Executive O"ico» Cho= Fee*. Manage* 



February 24. 2000 
TO: Severln Campbell, Budget Analyst's Office 

FROM: Neal Taniguchi, Chief Fiscal Officer 

RE: Indigent defense expenditure data 

You will find attached historical data collected from the City's accounting system on indigent aefense 
expenditures. The data shows the following: 

• We expect the indigent defense budget to run a shortfall of slightly over $500,000 for 
FY1999-2000 (Estimated expenditures of $6, 41 1,000 less 55,900,000 approved buaget) 

• Prior to the Public Defender conflicting ou» of Department 1 1 in March, 1 998. conflicts panel 
expenditures were decreasing Note the average monthly expenditures for each fiscal year 
In FT1 995-96, the Court spent approximately $628,000 per month. In FY1 996-97, the Court 
spent 5522.000 per month. In FY1 997-98. prior to June. 1998, the Court spent 5489, 0C0 pc 
month. In FY1998-99, including June of 1998, the Court spent 5614,000 per month Thus far 
through November, 1999, the Court spent at rate of 5689,000 per month. Tne increase m the 
monthly average is due to the Public Defender conflicting out of Department 11. 

• Expenditures always seem to decrease during December or January. 

• The Court always incurs an 'expenditure spike' at the end of the fiscal year. Invariably, 
attorneys and court staff rush to process their billings prior to the end of the fiscal year, either 
to expedite payment, to compensate for cases not billed ; n a timely manner, or to shift 
expenses to the current fiscal year (as was the case in FY1 997-98) In FY 1998-99 the CcLrt 
ended up shifting expenditures to this fiscal year due tc a shortfall in tne appropriation. 

• Approximately 5500,000 to $600,000, In FY1 998*99 attorney bills related to the Department 
11 issue, were pushed over into FY 1999-2000 for payment Approximately $140,000 of these 
bills were paid witn FY1 999-2000 appropriations because we ran short of 98-99 funomg, and 
the Controller's Office ceased authorizing oayments midway through June. To the best of our 
knowledge, the remaining $360,000 to $460,000 were bills received by the Court in FY1998- 
99, but did not submit for payment until FY1 999-2000. 

• Note that in FY1998-99 our conflicts appropriation was 55.9 million However, the Controller's 
Office allowed us to overspend the budget by $254,000, before it ceased authorizing 
payments in mid-June. 

400 McAllister Street • Room 20G 

San Francisco. CA 9*132-4 514 

ntanigucbi@sftc.org 



35 



FEB 24 '00 04:52PM P. 2/2 

Attachment 

Page 2 of 2 
• Through January 31 , 2000. the Court incurred actual expenditures of $4,21 1 ,624, or 71 % of 
the budget of 55,900,000. The Court will spend on indigent defense an estimated $2,200,000, 
or approximately $440,000 per month, over the remaining five months of the fiscal year. 

In addition, you requested an estimate of the increase in criminal cases assigned to conflicts counsel in 
Department 1 1 . The Court has not been able to determine the exact increase in cases, since our 
database only tracks attorney bills paid and total numbers of cases. However, we do know that attorney's 
billed for approximately 1,020 more cases in FY1 998-99, than in previous years. This is the aggregate 
data we have: 

1996-97 3,992 cases paid 

1997-98 4.121 cases paid 

1 998-99 5,023 cases paid 

1999-00 3,980 projected cases paid 

1 999-00 1 .943 actual cases paid through December 31. 1 999 

If you should have questions about the expenditure and caseload data, please call me at 551-5727. 



36 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 3 - File 00-0242 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Budget: 



Comments: 



Mayor's Office 

Ordinance appropriating $60,000 from the General Fund 
Reserve for the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender 
Historical Society of Northern California. 

$60,000 

General Fund Reserve 

The proposed ordinance would appropriate $60,000 to the 
Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Historical 
Society of Northern California ("Historical Society") to 
provide for a shortfall in the Historical Society's FY 1999- 
2000 budget. 

Attachment I, provided by the Historical Society, contains 
the Historical Society's bu IT 1999-2000. This 

budget contains all of the Historical Society's revenue 
sources for FY 1999-2000, including all revenues 
previously allocated by the City to the Historical Society. 
Attachment II, provided by the Historical Society, 
includes a FY 1999-2000 expenditure budget for the 
proposed grant appropriation. 

1. According to Ms. Susan Stryker. Executive Director of 
the Gay. Lesbian. Bisexual, and Transgender Historical 
Society, the Historical Society was founded in 1985 as a 
community-based archive to collect, preserve, and 
promote an active knowledge of the history, arts, and 
culture of sexually diverse communities in Northern 
California. 

2. As shown in the Historical Society's attached budget 
for FY 1999-2000, Ms. Stryker states that estimated 
expenditures of S287.950 exceed estimated revenues of 
$227,950 by $60,000. This shortfall has been caused by 
increased salary and rent costs, according to Ms. Stryker. 
Therefore, the Historical Society is requesting that the 
City's General Fund make up the projected shortfall of 
$60,000. 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

3. Ms. Stryker states that the Historical Society intends 
to secure full funding in its next fiscal year through its 
increased fundraising capacity, increased donor 
contributions, higher fees for services provided by the 
Historical Society, and greater diversification of its 
funding streams so that it will not need to request any 
financial support from the General Fund. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for 

the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment 
Paee 1 of '<. 



Provisional Budget, Calendar Year 2000 (as of 2.2.00) 
Center for the History of Sexual Diversity 
GLBT Historical Society of Northern California 



Projected Revenues 




Earned Income 




Photocopy sales 


S 1,500 


Reprographic sales 


S 500 


Research Services 


S 500 


Investment income 


S 1,000 


Sublets 


S 500 


Royalties 


S 2,500 


Newsletter Sales/Ads 


S 500 


Memberships 


>: l.ooo 


Donations/Contributions 


$40,000 



Events 



Spring Art Affair (gross) $33,000 
Fall Awards Dinner (gross) $20,000 
Misc. Other $ 2,500 



Grants (Awarded) 

1999 San Francisco Fd. 
1999Friends/Fd. SFPL 
1999 Haas. Jr. Fund 
1999 Horizons Fd. 
1999 Cat. Council. Hum. 

1999 Creative Work Fund 

2000 Inst. Sex. Minorities 

in the Military 

Grants (Unidentified/Unsecured) 

CCSF Funds 

CY 1999 GFTA 

CY 1999 Supplemental 

2000 Supplemental 



SI 5,000 

$15,000 

$ 3,500 (restricted-strategic planning) 

S 2.350 (restncted-fiscally sponsored project) 

$ 3.400 ( restricted-fiscal ly sponsored project) 

S 200 i restncted-fiscally sponsored project) 

$ 350 (restricted-World War II Records Project) 

$30,000 



SI 5.000 
$20,000 
$60,000 



TOTAL: 



S287.950 



Profit/Loss = SO.OO 
Source: GLBT Historical Society of Northern California 



Attachment I 
Page 2 of 2 



Provisional Budget, Calendar Year 2000 (as of 2.2.00) 
Center for the History of Sexual Diversity 
GLBT Historical Society of Northern California 

Projected Expenses 



Rent 


S 68,250 


Utilities 


$ 3,000 


Maint./Repairs 


S 1,800 


Telephone/Communications 


S 3,500 


Postage and Shipping 


S 4,000 


Insurance 


S 3,000 


Supplies/Equip: Office 


S 9,600 


Supplies/Equip: Archives 


S 2,000 


Supplies/Equip: Exhibitions 


$ 5,000 


Supplies/Equip: Oral History 


$ 1,500 


Salaries and Benefits 


$101,150 


Consultants/contract employees 


$ 42,000 


Accounting/Bookkeeping 


$ 5,000 


Spring Art Affair Expenses 


S 23,000 


Fall Awards Dinner Expenses 


S 11,000 


Auto/Travel 


S 2,250 


Miscellaneous 


S 1 ,900 


TOTAL 


5287,950 



02/22/2008 19:46 



4157775576 



GLHS 



Attachment II 




GLBT Historical Society of Northern California 

Center for the History of Sexual Diversity Febnjary ft 2qqo 

ATTN: Alan Gibson 

Mr. Gibson: 

Please find below a break -down of expenses for the $60,000 in supplemental funds we have recently 
requested (Item 3-File 00-0242). which goes before the Finance and Labor Committee on Wednesday, 
March 1. 2000. 

As you may recall, we have requested a total of $80,000 in supplemental funds from the City in FY 99-00, 
in addiuon to the $15,000 awarded by Grants from the Arts (Hotel Tax Fund) in the current fiscal year. The 
$15,000 from GFTA is made available on a reimbursement basis for general operating expenses, including 
salaries and overhead. One half of this amount ($7500) can be billed for expenses incurred July 1- 
December 31, and we are in the process of preparing those invoices. We will bill for the other balf of the 
year later in the spring. $20,000 was awarded to us in August 1999 in the first round of supplemental budget 
disbursements. A member of our Board of Directors, Galen Leung, who happens to be a contracts manager 
in the City Public Health Department, is finalizing the terms of our contract with the City for the award of 
this $20,000. Budget details of this award are being worked out separately from the request before you now 

Our rationale for approaching the City at this time was to help our organization weather a drastic (.85%) 
increase in our rent that took effect in September, 1999. We asked for $80,000 in total funds based on our 
projections for rent and utilities for an entire calendar year. Our actual annual rent for calendar year 2000 
will be $71,814 60. This does not include phone or internet services, office systems maintenance, or 
dtrecdy related administrative overhead costs. Clearly, the $80,000 requested will be spent on the expenses 
for which we have requested supplemental budget funds. 



We intend to use the $60,000 we are currently requesting to pay the bulk of our rent and uoliDes for FY 99- 
00, which total $63,961 65. The line items are divided into two sections. First. July 1, 1999-October 31, 
1999. when are monthly expenses were in flux. Second, November 1. 1999- June 30, 2000. the end of 
CCSF FY 99-00. 
Period: July 1. 1999-October 31. 1999 

Basement Storage Area: $800 (4 months @$200/mo.) 

Utilities (gas/electric): S1200 (4 months @ S300/mo.. av.) 

Offsite Exhibit Storage: $ 665.85 (3 months [Aug Oct] @ $221.45/mo.) 

Office/Achives Rent: $2762.75 (July) 

Office/Achives Rent: $2762 75 (Auguit) 

(2 weeks free rent at end of lease] 

Office/Achives Rent; $5262.60 (September 15-October 14) 

Office/Achives Rent: $263130 (October 15-October 31) 

SUBTOTAL: $16,085.25 

$ 200 /mo 

$ 300 /mo. av. 

$ 221.95 /mo. 

$ 5262.60 /mo. 



Period: November 1. 1999-June 30. 2000 
Basement Storage 
Uuliies (gas/electric) 
O.fstte Exhibit Storage 
Office/ Archives Rent 



= $5984.55/mo. x 8 mos. 



SUBTOTAL: $47,876.40 



Sincerely, 

^^A^/^V - 

Susan Stryker 
Executive Director 



TOTAL: $63,961.65 



Mailing Address: P.O. Box 4242S0. San Francisco. CA 94142 

Research Room, Exhibit Space, Archives & Offices: 973 Market St.. Suite 400. San Francisco. CA 94103 

Phone: (415) 777-5455 Fax: (415) 777-5576 E-maiL glhsnc@aol.com Web: wwm glhs org 




City and County of £an Francisco " 

Meeting Minutes 

Finance and Labor Committee 

Members: Supervisors Leland Yee, Sue Bierman, Tom Ammiano 
Clerk: Mary Red 



City Hall 

1 Dr. Carlton B 

Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, CA 

94102-4689 



Friday, March 03, 2000 



1:00 PM 
Special Meeting 



City Hall, Room 263 



Members Present: Tom Ammiano, Mark Leno. 



Meeting Convened 

The meeting convened at 1:07 p.m. Supervisor Ammiano appointed Supervisor Leno to the Finance and 
Labor Committee for today only. 

000352 [Emergency winter shelter for homeless gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender youth| 
Supervisor Ammiano 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds in the amount of 554,290 to the Department of Public Health to 
fund an emergency winter shelter for homeless gay/lesbiaatnsexuaL/transgender youth. 

2/28/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee Sponsor requests this matter be heard at a Special committee 
meeting on March 3, 2000 at 1 .00 p.m 

Heard in Committee Speakers Monique Zmuda. Chief Financial Officer, Department of Public Health. 
Supervisor Leno; Jakkee Bryson; Sylvia Kundig; Harry Alieo. Noe Valley Merchants Association; Jerry 
Steiner; Mia, Mia's Flower Shop, Gracie Atherton, Noe Community Work Group; Darlene Crisp; Anastasia 
Yovanopoulos; Tawnee Walliry, Metropolitan Community Church. Supervisor Ammiano. Ted Lakey. Deputy 
City Attorney. 

APPROVED AND FILED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 2 - Ammiano, Leno 



ADJOURNMENT 

The meeting adjourned at 1:52 p.m. 



DOCUMENTS DEPT 
JAN 2 4 200! 

SAN FRANCISCO 
p UBLIC LIBRARY 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at S: 50 P.M on WOO 






CITY AND COUNTY 




OFSANFR 



J30ARD OF SUPERVISORS 



Susan Horn 

Government Documents Section 

Main Library 

DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
MAR - 3 2000 



BUDGET ANALYST 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 
FAX (415) 252-0461 



February 29, 2000 
TO: y Finance and Labor Committee 

FROM: ^Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: .March 3, 2000 Special Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 
Item 1 - File 99-00-0352 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Department of Public Health 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds in the 
amount of $54,290 for the Department Of Public 
Health to fund an emergency winter shelter for 
homeless gay/lesbian/transgender youth. 

$54,290 

General Fund Reserve 

On January 24, 2000 the Board of Supervisors 
approved a supplemental appropriation for $54,290 
to fund an emergency winter shelter program 
targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer 
and questioning young adults, and placed the 
entire $54,290 on reserve, pending the receipt of 
additional budget and staffing information. The 
proposed program would provide nine to ten beds 
per night at the Metropolitan Community Church 
located at 1508 Church Street, near the 
intersection of 26 th Street in Noe Valley for the 
three month period beginning in early March and 
ending in early June of 2000. 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 3, 2000 Special Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Budget: As shown in the Attachment to this report, 

provided by Ms. Anne Okubo of DPH, the proposed 
total budget of $54,290 provides for personnel costs 
of $35,390, start up costs of $3,300 and operating 
expenses of $15,400. 

Comments: 1. Mr. Eric Politzer of Ark of Refuge, Inc. previously 

reported that Ark of Refuge provided emergency 
winter shelter for approximately 30 young adults 
per night at 1025 Howard Street in the South of 
Market area during the Winter of 1997-98, in 
response to El Nino and the displacement of 
homeless persons from Golden Gate Park. 
According to Mr. Politzer this FY 1997-98 shelter 
program, which extended for three months, was 
funded through a contract with the Department of 
Human Services. Mr. Politzer further advises that 
Ark of Refuge provided emergency winter shelter 
for approximately 30 young adults per night at the 
Eureka Valley Recreation Center on Collingwood 
Street in the Castro neighborhood during the 
Winter of 1998-99, at a cost of approximately 
$70,000 for a ten-week program. This FY 1998-99 
program was funded through a contract with the 
Mayor's Office of Community Development. 
According to Mr. Politzer, Ark of Refuge was 
selected on a sole source basis for the subject 
project because of their experience in providing 
similar projects during the past two winters. 

2. DPH has now entered into a new sole source 
contract with Ark of Refuge, Inc. to provide the 
requested services. As a result, Ms. Okubo reports 
that the proposed emergency shelter could open 
immediately, once the subject requested funds are 
approved. According to Ms. Okubo, Ark of Refuge 
also has a current contract with DPH to provide 
residential substance abuse treatment for HIV 
women at a cost of $282,480 annually. 

3. As shown in the Attachment, the proposed 
program will provide 12 staff under the proposed 
temporary three-month contract. In addition, as 
shown in the Attachment, the costs for the rent at 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 3, 2000 Special Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

the Metropolitan Community Church have been 
reduced from $1,000 per month under the original 
supplemental appropriation request to $500 per 
month under the proposed release of reserve, a 
reduction of $500 per month, or $1,500 over the 
three month period. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed release of reserved funds. 





Harvey M. Rose 



cc: Supervisor Yee 
Supervisor Bierman 
President Ammiano 
Supervisor Becerril 
Supervisor Brown 
Supervisor Katz 
Supervisor Kaufman 
Supervisor Leno 
Supervisor Newsom 
Supervisor Teng 
Supervisor Yaki 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Legislative Analyst 
Matthew Hymel 
Stephen Kawa 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

3 



Attachment 



Department of Public Health 

Funds Held on Reserve 

Emergency Shelter for Homeless Gay Youths 

TitJa 

Lead Counselor 

Counselor 

Janitor 

Van Driver 

Shelter Director 

Executive Director 

Project Manager 

Finance Officer 

Volunteer Coordinator 

Subtotal 35,590 

Start Up Personnel Coats (1) 3 300 

Operating Expenses 

Rent (2) | 500 

Utilities 1_225 

Building Maintenance 2.250 

Insurance 750 

Printing and Reproduction -,00 

Advertise Job Openings 700 







Hourly 




FTFs 


Hours 


Rate 


Amount 


2.0 


538 


5 15.00 


5 16.128 


2.0 


252 


$ 13.00 


6.552 


1.0 


252 


5 1000 


2,520 


1.0 


252 


5 10.00 


2.520 

3.600 
750 
1.080 
1,000 
1.440 



Food 



3,780 



Laundry 1.875 

Office Supplies 300 

Supplies for Residents 50o 

Janitorial Supplies 750 

Materials & Supplies (3) 1 370 

Subtotal Operating Expenses 15,400 

Total $ 54,290 



(1) Includes staff training, proposal development, community & otner meetings. 

(2) Rent @ 5500/month x 3 months 

(3) Blankets © 5200, pillows © 5250. pillow casas © $70, towels © 5250, phone ©5100. 

phone installation © 5250, kitchen supplies © 5250 



>ia»<nuwoontfiion.iMur <a irr«/oo 




City and County of San Francisco 

Meeting Minutes 

Finance and Labor Committee 

Members: Supervisors Leland Yee, Sue Merman, Tom Ammiano 
Clerk: Mary Red 



City Hall 

1 Dr. Carlton B. 

Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, CA 

94102^689 



Wednesday, March 08, 2000 



10:00 AM 
Regular Meeting 



City Hall, Room 263 



Members Present: Leland Y. Yee, Tom Ammiano. 
Members Absent: Sue Bierman. 



Meeting Convened 

The meeting convened at 10:08 a.m. 

REGULAR AGENDA 



DOCUMENTS DEPT 

MM I 22® 
SANFR ANC|SCC 
PU BLIC library 



000169 [Management Audit Report, Clerk of the Board] 
Supervisor Ammiano 

Hearing to consider the results of the management audit report conducted for the Clerk of the Board. 
1/24/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Gloria L. Young, Clerk of the Board; 
Super\'isor Ammiano; Supervisor Yee; Shelli Moreda, TechProse; Anastasia Yovanopoulos. 
FILED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



000384 [Appropriating $502,008, Department of Elections, for new Vote Scanning System] 
Supervisor Newsom 

Ordinance appropriating 5502,008 from the General Fund Reserve for temporary salaries, minor furnishings 
and equipment, for the new Vote Scanning System at the Department of Elections, for Fiscal Year 1999-2000. 
(Controller) 

(Fiscal Impact) 

3/1/00, DIVIDED Heard in Committee Speakers: Ken Bruce, Budget Analyst's Office; Naomi Nishioka, Department of Flections; 

Supervisor Yee, Ed Hamngton, Controller; Supervisor Newsom Divided from File 000244. 

3/1/00, CONTINUED Continued to March 8, 2000. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Haney Rose, Budget Analyst; Carol Roos. Legislative Analyst; Naomi 

Nishioka. Department of Elections. 

RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 1 2:2-1 I'M on ! V ill) 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting MUiutet 



Man I, H, 2000 



000242 (Appropriating funds to Gay and Lesbian Historical Society! 
Supervisors I rim. Katz, Ammiano, Bierman 

Ordinance appropriating $60,000 of General Fund Reserve for a one-time grant to the Gay and Lesbian 
Historical Society of Northern California, through the Mayor's Office, for fiscal year 1999-2000. 
2/7/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and l abor Committee 
3/1/00, CONTINUED. Continued to March 8, 2000. 
Sponsor requests that item be tabled 
TABLED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 
Absent: 1 - Bierman 



000235 (Approving the concession leases of Travelex America. Inc. to operate two (2) MM facilities at the 
Airport, at a minimum annual rent for the first year of S240.500 for each lease| 

Resolution approving two Automated Idler Machine Leases for the existing and New. International Terminal 
Buildings between Travelex America. Inc. and the City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through its 
Airport Commission. (Airport Commission) 
2/4/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and I abor Committee 
3/1/00, CONTINUED Continued to March 8. 2000 
Continued to March 22, 2000. 
CONTINUED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



000236 (Approving the concession lease of Travelex America. Inc. to operate a foreign currency exchange office 
at the Airport, at a minimum annual rent for the first year of S4.1 27.500) 

Resolution approving the Foreign Currency Exchange Lease in the Existing and New International Terminal 

Buildings between Travelex America. Inc and the City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through its 

Airport Commission. (Airport Commission) 

2/4/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and 1 abor Committee 

3/1/00. CONTINUED. Continued to March 8. 2000. 

Continued to March 22, 2000. 

CONTINUED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



000268 | Approving the concession lease of Host International. Inc. for a specialty store and newsstand located at 
the North Terminal Hub of the Airport, at a minimum annual rent for the first year of S2.550.000| 

Resolution approving the North Terminal Hub Principal Retail Concession lease between Host International. 

Inc. and the City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through its Airport Commission. (Airport 

Commission) 

2/8/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

3/1/00, CONTINUED Heard in Committee Speakers Ken Bruce, Budget Analyst's Office; Jon Ballesteros. Airport Commission. 

Supervisor Ammiano; Ted Lakey, Deputy City Attorney Continued to March 8. 2000 

Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst. Jon Ballesteros. Airport Commission: 
Supervisor Yee; Supervisor Ammiano; Carl Cramer. Living Wage Coalition Continued to March 15. 2000 
CONTINUED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 12:24 PH on } V W 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



March 8, 2000 



000318 |Approving award of New International Terminal Fine Dining Restaurant Lease to GQC Holdings, Inc. 
at a minimum annual rent of $134,300 for the first year.) 

Resolution approving New International Terminal Fine Dining Restaurant Lease to GQC Holdings, Inc., a 

certified disadvantaged business enterprise, and the City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through 

its Airport Commission. (Airport Commission) 

2/16/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Continued to March 22, 2000. 

CONTINUED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



000289 [Release of Funds, Fire Department] 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds, Fire Department^ 1986 Fire Protection Bond interest earnings, 

File 101-95-61: Ordinance No. 127-96 ), in the amount of $59,120 to fund the emergency repairs of the City's 

Auxiliary Water System (AWSS) facilities located at Third/Evans Streets, and Evans/Selby Streets. (Fire 

Department) 

2/14/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Supervisor Yee. Continued to March 15. 

2000; no department representative present. 

CONTINUED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



SPECIAL ORDER - 11:00 A.M. 



991413 [Appropriation, $175,000, Rent Arbitration Board Fact-Based Socio Economic Study] 
Supervisor Brown 

Ordinance appropriating $175,000, Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board to fund a fact-based 
socio-economic study of the effects of the San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration 
Ordinance (Administrative Code Chapter 37), for fiscal year 1999-2000. 

(Companion measure to File 991412.) 

8/16/99, ASSIGNED UNDER 30 DAY RULE to Finance and Labor Committee, expires on 9/15/1999. 
10/13/99, CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Joe Grubb, Executive Director, Rent Stablization and Arbitration Board. 
Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Supervisor Brown; June Gutfleisch, Supervisor Bierman's Aide; Supervisor 
Ammiano; Anastasia Yovanopoulos; Carmen Ramirez; Jose Morales; Carol Arnold; Al Rose, FDR Disabled 
Club; Brook Turner, Coalition for Better Housing; Michelle Gordon; Marian Halley; Garry Briggs. Andrew 
Long; George Wong; Professor Donald Gibbs; UCSF; Tom Ramm; John Malone. Small Property Owners of 
S.F.; Jim Fabris, Association of Realtors; Calvin Welch; Phillip Brady. Youth Activist; Kathleen McNamara, 
Peter Chin; El Nino, Haight Ashbury Street Tenants Alliance; Norman Rolfe; Teresa Gonio; Marilyn 
Cosentino; Randy Shaw, Director, Tenderloin Housing Clinic; Kim Schlater; Linda Dunn. Peter Odlon: Jim 
Hewitt, Senior Housing Action Collaborative; Peter Lewis; Marie Pennington, Tenderloin Heights. Maureen 
Reem; Miguel Wooding; Rebecca Graft, Housing Rights Advocates: Garrett Jenkins. North oj Market Housing 
Coalition; Teresa Day; Bill Quan; Matt Brown. St. Peters Housing Committee. Ted Gullicksen, SI' Tenants 
Union; Jack McGoldrick, Richmond District; Sarah Short. Tenderloin Housing ( 'link, Winer Tucker. Lou 
Legnitto; Russ Charpentier; Janan New, S.F. Apartment Association Amended to place SI 75.000 on reserve 
AMENDED. 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 12:24 PM on IV'OO 



Finance and Labor Committee Meeting Minute, March H, 2000 

Ordinance appropriating $175,000, Residential Rent Stabilization and Abitration Board to fund a fact-based 
socio-economic study of the effects of the San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization and Abitration 
Ordinance (Administrative Code Chapter 37), for fiscal year 1999-2000, placing $175,000 on reserve. 

(Companion measure to File 991412.) 

To Board March 20. 2000. 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following xote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 
Absent: 1 - Bierman 



991412 |Study of Rent Control Ordinance Socio-Economic Effects; Requiring Findings| 
Supervisors Brown, Teng, Kaufman 

Ordinance amending Administrative Code "Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance" (Rent 
Control Ordinance) by adding a new Section 37. 6A to provide that the Residential Rent Stabilization and 
Arbitration Board shall obtain a neutral comprehensive fact-based socio-economic study of housing in San 
Francisco, including a study of whether there exists a housing shortage constituting a "crisis." and, if so, 
identifying the dimensions of that crisis; providing a goal of completing the study within one year; providing 
that proposed substantive amendments to the rent control ordinance must be supported by a fact-based study. 
and, findings in support of this ordinance. 

(Adds Section 376A.) 

8/16/99, ASSIGNED UNDER 30 DAY RULE lo Finance and Labor Committee, expires on 9 15 1999 

10/13/99, CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR Heard in Committee Speakers In Support Teresa Gonio 

2/7/00, SUBSTITUTED Submitted by Supervisor Brown in Board, bearing new title 

2/7/00. ASSIGNED UNDER 30 DAY RULE to Finance and Labor Committee, expo 

Heard in Committee Speakers Joe Grubb. Executive Director, Rent Stahhzatwn and Arbitration Board. 

Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst. Supervisor Brown, June Gutfleisch. Supervisor Bierman's Aide. Supervisor 

Ammiano: Anastasia Yovanopoulos. Carmen Ramirez. Jose Morales; Carol Arnold. Al Rose. FDR Disabled 

Club; Brook Turner. Coalition for Better Housing Michelle Gordon Marian Hallev. Garry Briggs. Andrew 

Long; George Wong; Professor Donald Gibbs; L'CSF: Tom Ramm; John Malone Small Property- Owners of 

S.F.. Jim Fabris. Association of Realtors Calvin Welch, Phillip Brady. Youth Activist Kathleen \h\amara. 

Peter Chin; El Nino. Haight Ashbury Street Tenants Alliance: Norman Rolfe. Teresa Gonio. Marilyn 

Cosenttno. Randy Shaw; Director. Tenderloin Housing Clinic. Kim Schlater. Linda Dunn. Peter Odlon Jim 

Hewitt. Senior Housing Action Collaborative. Peter Lewis. Marie Pennington. Tenderloin Heights. Maureen 

Reem; Miguel Wooding; Rebecca Graft. Housing Rights Advocates, Garrett Jenkins. North ut Market Housing 

Coalition. Teresa Day; Bill Quan; Malt Brown. St. Peters Housing Committee. Ted Gullicksen. S F Tenants 

Union; Jack McGoldnck. Richmond District; Sarah Short. Tenderloin Housing Clinic. Nancy Tucker. Lou 

Legnitto; Russ Charpentier; Janan New, S.F. Apartment Association Amendment of the Whole relating to 

only the study of housing in San Francisco. 

AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE \\ HOLE BEARIM, M W TITLE. 

Ordinance directing the Executive Director of the Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board to 

obtain a neutral comprehensive fact-based socio-economic study of housing in San Francisco; providing a goal 

of completing the study within one year: providing that substantive amendments to various housing ordinances 

and policies must be supported by findings of fact: and. findings in support of this ordinance 

To Board March 20. 2000. 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following \ote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee. Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



ADJOURNMENT 

Meeting adjourned at 1:04 p m 

City and Count) of San Francisco * Printed at 12:24 PM on 3 9 DO 



CITY AND COUNTY 




Susan Horn 

Government Documents Section 

Main Library 



OF SAN Fl 



,BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 
FAX C415) 252-0461 



March 2, 2000 
TO: ^Finance and Labor Committee 

FROM: .Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: ^larch 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 
Item 2 - File 00-0384 

Note: This item was severed from File 00-0244 by the Finance and 

Labor Committee at its March 1. 2000 meeting. 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Department of Elections 

Ordinance appropriating $502,008 from the 
General Fund Reserve for temporary salaries, 
minor furnishings, and equipment for the new 
optical scan vote count system at the Department 
of Elections, for FY 1999-2000. 

$502,008 

General Fund Reserve 

The proposed ordinance would appropriate 
$502,008 to the Department of Elections to allow it. 
to (a) purchase ancillary information systems 
hardware and software upgrades, (b) purchase 
furniture and other infrastructure upgrades, and 
(c) hire additional temporary- staffing required by 
the Department's new optical scan vote count 
system. 

DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

MAR - 6 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Budget: 



Comments: 



The attached budget in the amount of $502,008 
was provided by the Department of Elections. 

1. According to Ms. Naomi Nishioka of the 
Department of Elections, the Department of 
Elections plans to purchase a new optical scan vote 
count system for use in the November 7, 2000 
general election. According to Ms. Nishioka, the 
new system is expected to be more efficient, permit 
faster voting and vote counting, and speed up 
write-in processing and counting of absentee ballots 
once signatures have been verified. A vendor. 
Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S), was 
selected in March of 1999 following (a) a Request 
for Proposals process, (b) a customer service survey 
of selected San Francisco voters, and (c) a trial of 
the optical scan vote count system in 50 precincts 
during the November 1998 election. Mr. David 
Shipper of the City Attorney's Office states that 
finalization of a contract between the City and 
ES&S is awaiting approval of the funding for the 
acquisition of the new vote system. As the pending 
ES&S contract is for less than ten years and less 
than $10,000,000, such a contract will not require 
Board of Supervisors approval, according to Mr. 
Shipper. 

2. Ms. Nishioka states that the budget for the 
purchase of ES&S hardware and software is as 
follows: 



Expenditure Items 


Amount 


ES&S hardware 


862,000 


ES&S software licenses 


67,500 


Non-ES&S equipment and 


58.277 


software 




Subtotal: 


i 987,777 


Sales Tax @ 8.5% 


253.961 


TOTAL: 


$3,241,738 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

3. Ms. Nishioka states that the total cost of 
$3,241,738 would be funded initially by means of 
equipment lease financing. Under this form of 
financing, which would ensure that the equipment 
is purchased in time for the November 7, 2000 
General Election, a selected lender would pay 
ES&S a total of $3,241,738 for the hardware and 
software. The City's lease financing debt would 
then be retired through annual lease purchase 
payments appropriated in the Department of 
Election's future annual budgets. The lease term 
would be up to five years, according to Ms. 
Nishioka. The City has issued a Request for 
Qualifications in order to seek competitive interest 
rate bids from lenders for a total amount of 
$3,241,738. According to Mr. Tony Fiore of the 
Purchasing Department, the Department of 
Elections, the City Attorney's Office, and the 
Purchasing Department are currently evaluating 
the bids received from lenders for their 
responsiveness and for the lenders' compliance with 
the Equal Benefits Ordinance. Mr. Fiore estimates 
that a contract could be signed with the selected 
lender by the end of March of 2000. Ms. Nishioka 
states that the initial lease purchase payments for 
acquisition of the ES&S hardware and software 
will be included in the Department of Elections FY 
2000-2001 budget in the approximate amount of 
$767,000. 

4. According to Ms. Theresa Alvarez of the City 
Attorney's Office, the City would have the option to 
repay the lender on any payment date set forth in 
the financing agreement between the lender and 
the City. Such repayment would be funded by 
proceeds derived from the equipment lease revenue 
bonds issued by the nonprofit City and County of 
San Francisco Finance Corporation in November 
pursuant to the City's equipment lease revenue 
program. If a lump sum repayment is made after 
acquisition of the new vote count system for the 
November 7, 2000 General Election, then the 
equipment lease financing would act as a funding 
"bridge" between the purchase of equipment in 
early 2000, to ensure that it would be operational 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



in time for the November 7, 2000 General Election, 
and the Finance Corporation's issuance of 
equipment lease revenue bonds in November of 
2000. 

5. According to Ms. Nishioka, ES&S ancillary 
services in the value of $145,900 would be provided 
free-of-charge to the City during FY 2000-2001. 
Such services would include acceptance testing of 
precinct and central ballot counters; ballot 
generation; vote counting; and storage, delivery, 
set up, and pick up of precinct counters. Ms. 
Nishioka states that between FY 2001-2002 and FY 
2004-2005, ^S&S would provide equivalent 
ancillary services at a cost of $794,400 under a 
personal services contract between ES&S and the 
City which has been approved in principle by the 

( livil Service Commission but which has not yet 
been signed. Funding for ES&S ancillary services 
would be requested as part of the Department of 
Election's annual budget appropriations according 
to Ms. Nishioka. 

6. Ms. Nishioka states that, in order to ensure a 
smooth conversion to the new system, during FY 
1999-2000 (a) ancillary information systems 
hardware and software need to be upgraded at an 
estimated cost of $112,200, (b) furniture and other 
infrastructure need to be upgraded at an estimated 
cost of $289,808, and (b) temporary- City staff with 
project management skills need to be hired to 
support a wide variety of planning activities at in 
estimated cost of $100,000. The Attachment 
contains detailed budgets in the amounts of 
$112,200 for the information systems hardware 
and software upgrades, and $289,808 for furniture 
and other infrastructure upgrades. The Budget 
Analyst has reviewed vendor price quotations for 
the equipment specified and found that the budget 
amounts requested are reasonable. With regard to 
the line-item budget for voting booths, the proposed 
amount of $250,000 would purchase 5,303 voting 
booths at an approximate cost of $47.14 per booth 
(inclusive of trade-in). 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

7. The attached budget also contains a $100,000 
line item for temporary project management staff. 
Mr. Ara Minasian of the Department of 
Administrative Services states that this $100,000 
budget was determined by the Elections Council 
which comprises the Controller, the City 
Administrator, and a representative of the City 
Attorney's Office. According to Controller Ed 
Harrington, the Elections Council strongly 
recommends funding for necessary project 
management and critical technical resources to 
ensure that the new optical scan vote count system 
is implemented successfully by the November 7, 
2000 general election. Mr. Harrington adds that 
details on such project management staffing will be 
identified during the remainder of FY 1999-2000 
and specifically enumerated in the proposed FY 
2000-2001 budget. 

Recommendations: Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy 

matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Actachmerv 



Department of Elections 

Voting System Replacement Project Budget for FY 99-00 

(excluding voter registration scanning equipment) 



Information Systems Hardware and Software 


Quantity 


Price 


Amount 


j Network Server Equipment 








I Server 


1 


3 20,000 


$ 30.000 


Server Rack 


1 


3,000 


3.000 


Server Rack Conversion Kit 


1 


500 


500 


Memory Upgrade - Existing Server 


4 


400 


1.600 


, Memory Upgrade - Vote Count 


3 


250 


750 


Subtotal 






35.850 


Desktop Computers 


Computers 


40 


1,100 


44.000 


Laptops 


6 


3.500 


21.000 


Subtotal 






65,000 


Monitors 


Regular- 17" 


17 


250 


4.250 


Flat Screen AV Counter 


5 


900 


4.500 


Subtotal 






8.750 


Misc Hardware 


Projectors Screens 


2 


300 


600 


ZIP Drive. CDRW Drive 


1 


1.000 


1.000 


Subtotal 






1.600 


Software 


Misc Software Upgrades 


1 


1.000 


1.000 


Subtotal 






1,000 


Subtotal - IS Hardware and Software 






112,200 




Other Furnishings 


Voting Booths 






250.000 


Op-Contract / Data Entry Workstations 


12 




29.563 


Absentee Ballot Cages 


2 


220 


440 


AbsenteeA/RC Carts 


5 


261 


1,305 


Absentee Ballot Sealer 


1 


4.000 


4.000 


Absentee Ballot Sorting Bins 


2 


500 


1.000 


Absentee Letter Opener Attachment 


1 


3.000 


3.000 


VRC Storage Trays 


100 


5 


500 


Subtotal - Other Furnishings 






289,808 




Project Management 






100.000 




Total Project Budget for FY 99-00 






$502,008 



3/1/00 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 3 - File 00-0242 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance and Labor Committee at its 
meeting of March 1, 2000. 



Department: 
Item: 

Amount: 

Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Budget: 



Comments: 



Mayor's Office 

Ordinance appropriating $60,000 from the General Fund 
Reserve for the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender 
Historical Society of Northern California. 

$60,000 

General Fund Reserve 

The proposed ordinance would appropriate $60,000 to the 
Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Historical 
Society of Northern California ("Historical Society") to 
provide for a shortfall in the Historical Society's FY 1999- 
2000 budget. 

Attachment I, provided by the Historical Society, contains 
the Historical Society's budget for FY 1999-2000. This 
budget contains all of the Historical Society's revenue 
sources for FY 1999-2000, including all revenues 
previously allocated by the City to the Historical Society. 
Attachment II, provided by the Historical Society, 
includes a FY 1999-2000 expenditure budget for the 
proposed grant appropriation. 

1. According to Ms. Susan Stryker, Executive Director of 
the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Historical 
Society, the Historical Society was founded in 1985 as a 
community-based archive to collect, preserve, and 
promote an active knowledge of the history, arts, and 
culture of sexually diverse communities in Northern 
California. 



2. As shown in the Historical Society's attached budget 
for FY 1999-2000, Ms. Stryker states that estimated 
expenditures of $287,950 exceed estimated revenues of 
$227,950 by $60,000. This shortfall has been caused by 
increased salary and rent costs, according to Ms. Stryker. 
Therefore, the Historical Society is requesting that the 
City's General Fund make up the projected shortfall of 
$60,000. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



3. Ms. Stryker states that the Historical Society intends 
to secure full funding in its next fiscal year through its 
increased fundraising capacity, increased donor 
contributions, higher fees for services provided by the 
Historical Society, and greater diversification of its 
funding streams so that it will not need to request any 
financial support from the General Fund. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for 

the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment I 
Paee 1 of 2 



Provisional Budget, Calendar Year 2000 (as of 2.2.00) 
Center for the History of Sexual Diversity 
GLBT Historical Society of Northern California 



Projected Revenues 




Earned Income 




Photocopy sales 


$ 1,500 


Reprographic sales 


5 500 


Research Services 


S 500 


Investment income 


5 1,000 


Sublets 


S 500 


Royalties 


S 2,500 


Newsletter Sales/Ads 


5 500 


Memberships 


521,000 


Donations/Contributions 


$40,000 



Events 



Spring Art Affair (gross) 533,000 
Fall Awards Dinner (gross) 520,000 
Misc. Other S 2,500 



Grants (Awarded) 

1999 San Francisco Fd. 
1999 Friends/Fd.S FPL 
1999 Haas, Jr. Fund 
1999 Horizons Fd. 
1999 Cal. Council. Hum. 

1999 Creative Work Fund 

2000 Inst. Sex. Minorities 

in the Military 

Grants (Unidentified/Unsecured) 

CCSF Funds 

CY 1999 GFTA 

CY 1999 Supplemental 

2000 Supplemental 



515,000 

515,000 

S 3,500 (restricted-strategic planning) 

S 2,350 (restricted— fiscally sponsored project) 

S 3,400 (restricted— fiscally sponsored project) 

S 200 (restricted— fiscally sponsored project) 

5 350 (restricted- World War II Records Project) 
530,000 



515,000 
520,000 
$60,000 



TOTAL: 5287,950 

Profit/Loss = S0.0O 
Source: GLBT Historical Societv of Northern California 



Attachment I 
Pap,e 2 of 2 



Provisional Budget, Calendar Year 2000 (as of 2.2.00) 
Center for the History of Sexual Diversity 
GLBT Historical Society of Northern California 

Projected Expenses 

Rent S 68.250 

Utilities S 3.000 

Maine/Repairs S 1.800 

Telephone/Communications S 3.500 

Postage and Shipping S 4,000 

Insurance S 3.000 

Supplies/Equip: Office S 9,600 

Supplies/Equip: Archives $ 2,000 

Supplies/Equip: Exhibitions S 5,000 

Supplies/Equip: Oral History S 1.500 



Salaries and Benefits $101,150 

Consultants/contract employees $ 42,000 

Accounting/Bookkeeping $ 5,000 

Spring An Affair Expenses $ 23,000 

Fall Awards Dinner Expenses $ 11,000 

Auto/Travel $ 2.250 

Miscellaneous $ 1.900 

TOTAL $287,950 



10 



02/22/2000 19:46 



4157775576 



GLHS 



Attachment II 




GLBT Historical Society of Northern California 

Center for the History of Sexual Diversity ? ^ ^ 2qqq 

ATTN: Alan Gibson 

Mr. Gibson: 

Please find below a break-down of expenses for the $60,000 in supplemental funds we have recently 
requested (Item 3-File 00-0242), which goes before the Finance and Labor Committee on Wednesday, 
March 1. 2000. 



As you may recall, we have requested a total of 380,000 in supplemental funds from the City in FY 99-00. 
in addition to the 515,000 awarded by Grants from the Arts (Hotel Tax Fund) in the current fiscal year. The 
$15,000 from GFTA is made available on a reimbursement basis for general operating expenses, including 
salaries and overhead. One half of this amount (S7500) can be billed for expenses incurred July 1- 
December 3 1 , and we are in the process of preparing those invoices. We will bill for the other half of the 
year later in the spring. $20,000 was awarded to us in August 1999 in the first round of supplemental budget 
disbursements. A member of our Board of Directors, Galen Leung, who happens to be a contracts manager 
in the City Public Health Department, is finalizing the terms of our contract with the City for the award of 
this $20,000. Budget details of this award are being worked out separately from the request before you now. 

Our rationale for approaching the City at this time was to help our organization weather a drastic (857c) 
increase in our rent that took effect in September, 1999. We asked for $80,000 in total funds based on our 
projecuons for rent and utilities for an entire calendar year. Our actual annual rent for calendar year 2000 
will be $71,814.60. This does not include phone or internet services, office systems maintenance, or 
diiecdy related administrative overhead costs. Clearly, the 580,000 requested will be spent on the expenses 
for which we have requested supplemental budget funds. 

We intend to use the $60,000 we are currently requesting to pay the bulk of our rent and utilities for FY 99- 
00, which total 563,96165. The line items are divided into two sections. First, July 1, 1999-October 31, 
1999, when are monthly expenses were in flux. Second, November 1, 1 999-- June 30, 2000, the end of 
CCSF FY 99-00. 
Penod: Julv 1, 1999-October 31, 1999 

Basement Storage Area: 5 800 

Utilities (gas/electric): S1200 

Offsite Exhibit Storage: $ 665.85 

Office/Achives Rent: S2762.75 

Office/Achives Rent: S2762.75 

Office/Achives Rent: $5262.60 

Office/Achives Rent: 5263 1 30 



Penod: November 1. 1999-lune 30, 2000 



Basement Storage 
Uulites (gas/electric) 
Offsite Exhibit Storage 
Office/ Archives Rent 



$ 200 
$ 300 

$ 221.95 
5 5262.60 



(4 months @$200/mo.) 

(4 months @ 5300/mo., av.) 

(3 months [Aug-Oct] <§> $221.45/mo.) 

(July) 

(August) 

[2 weeks free rent at end of lease] 

(September 15-October 14) 

(October 15-October 31) 

SUBTOTAL: 516.085.25 

/mo. 

/ mo. av. " 

/mo. 

/mo. 



= S5984.55/mo. x 8 mos. : 



SUBTOTAL: $47,876.40 



Sincerely, 



TOTAL: $63,961.65 



Susan Stryker 
Executive Director 



Mailing .Address: P.O. Box 424280. San Francisco, CA 94142 

Research Room, Exhibit Space, Archives <ft Offices: 973 Market St., Suite 400, San Francisco. CA 94103 

Phone: (415) 777-5455 Fax: (415) 777-5576 E-maiL slhsnc9aal.com Web: wwvuglhs org 



11 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 4 - File 00-0235 

Department: 

Item: 



Location: 



Purpose of Leases: 



Lessor: 



Lessee: 



.Airport 

Resolution approving two new automated teller 
machine leases for the new International Terminal 
between Travelex America, Inc. and the City and 
County of San Francisco, acting by and through its 
Airport Commission. 

New International Terminal Complex of the 

Airport 

The propped two new leases would provide space 
in the new International Terminal for 20 to 22 
automated teller machines (ATM), at ten different 
locations. Travelex America, Inc. would install and 
operate the proposed ATM- Travelex America, Inc. 
is required to install at least two ATMs at each of 
the ten locations, and has the option to install a 
third ATM at two of the ten locations, resulting in a 
maximum of 22 ATMs. The Airport issued two 
separate leases to operate ATM- in order to provide 
lease opportunities to as many companies as 
possible, however, Travelex America, Inc. was the 
only company to submit bid.- for the two subject 
leases (See below "Description'" section). 

City and County of San Francisco, acting by and 
through its Airport Commission. 

Travelex America. Inc., a Delaware Corporation 



Monthly Rental Revenues 
Payable by Travelex America. Inc. 
to the Airport: 



$20,125 monthly for 
$40,250 per month 
annually per 1 
leases.) 



each lease, for a total of 

for both leases (S241.500 

- 183.000 annuallv for both 



Annual Rental 
Revenues Payable by 
Travelex America, Inc. 
to the Airport: 



Beginning from the first year of the lease, and 
through the duration of the five-year lease period. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



12 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



the base annual rent payable by Travelex America, 
Inc. to the Airport includes the Minimum Annual 
Guarantee of $241,500 for each lease, for a total of 
$483,000 per year, subject to Consumer Price Index 
(CPI) annual adjustments. The $483,000 total 
Minimum Annual Guarantee for both leases 
applies to the ten proposed ATM locations, 
regardless of whether Travelex installs 20 or 22 
ATMs. In addition to the Minimum Annual 
Guarantee of $241,500 for each lease, Travelex 
America. Inc. would pay to the Airport Percentage 
Rent and Transaction Rent, defined as follows: 

"Percentage Rent " means rent paid in addition to 
and without set off against the [Minimum 
Annual Guarantee], in an amount equal to 
thirty-three percent (33%) of any Transaction 
Surcharge and /or changes for Optional Uses 
[defined as shown in Attachment I to this report] 
approved by Director and charged to ATM 
Customers who use the ATMs on the Premises. 

"Transaction Rent" means rent paid in addition 
to and without set off against the [Minimum 
Annual Guarantee], in an amount equal to ten 
cents ($0.10) for each Customer Use of Tenant's 
ATM on the Premises except that Transaction 
Rent shall not be payable with respect to 1) ATM 
Customer Use as to which Percentage Rent is 
payable, and 2) ATM Customer Use for which no 
transaction is completed due to reject of a 
customer's card or aborting by the customer of 
the ATM Customer Use prior to concluding any 
transaction. 

According to Mr. Bob Rhoades of the Airport, the 
Airport has not projected future revenues to be paid 
by Travelex to the Airport, in addition to the 
Minimum Annual Guarantee of $241,500 for each 
lease, based on anticipated Percentage and 
Transaction Rent payments. Mr. Rhoades advises 
that estimating demand for the new ATMs and 
related surcharge revenues is difficult since the 
ATM- will be located in a new building, for which 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



there is no historical data for making such 
forecasts. 

However, according to Mr. Rhoades, Travelex 
stated in its bid to the Airport that it plans to 
request permission from the Airport Director to 
impose a transaction surcharge on all ATM 
customers, as stated in Attachment II, provided by 
the Airport. Tnder the terms of the lease, Travelex 
may not charge a transaction surcharge of more 
than $1.50 per customer use. and Travelex would 
pay the Airport 33 percent of those surcharges. 
Under the terms of the lease, Travelex America, 
Inc. must have written approval from the Airport 
Director to impose a transaction surcharge, as 
stated in the lease as follows: 

Tenant shall not charge Transaction 
Surcharges except as approved by Director 

[emphasis added]. The Maximum amount of any 
such Transaction Surcharge (hat may be 
approved shall be $1.50 per Customer Use. The 
amount of any such Transaction Surcharge and 
a clear description of the customers to which it 
applies must be posted in a clearly visible 
manner on the exterior of the A TM unit, or stated 
clearly through the ATMs electronic display 
requesting the Customer if they agree to continue 
the transaction with a Transaction Surcharge 
before the Customer Use is 

completed... Transaction Surcharges shall be 
subject to Percentage Rent as described in the 
lease. 

Attachment II also contains: (a) the companies that 
currently hold v ith the Airport for ATMs in 

the Airport, (b) the annual Minimum Annual 
Guarantees paid by each of these companies to the 
Airport for the ATMs, and (c) the total combined 
surcharge revenues of $315,192 paid to the Airport 
by these companies for the ATM leases during 
1999. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

14 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Term of Lease: 



Right of Renewal: 



Utilities and Janitorial 
Provided by Lessor: 

Description: 



Tenant 
Improvements: 



The two proposed leases would commence on 
September 26, 2000. Each lease would be for a five 
year period, terminating on September 25, 2005. 

The Airport would have sole discretion to grant two 
one-year extensions for each lease. 

The Lessee pays for the costs of all utilities and 
janitorial services. 

On August 17, 1999, the Airport Commission 
requested bids for two Automated Teller Machine 
Leases for the new International Terminal 
Building. Subsequently, on December 21, 1999, the 
Airport Commission adopted a resolution awarding 
the two leases to Travelex America, Inc., the sole 
bidder (Resolution No. 99-0458). According to Mr. 
Rhoades, the sole bidder, Travelex America, Inc., 
submitted a Minimum Annual Guarantee bid of 
$241,500. Mr. Rhoades advises that the Airport 
issued Invitations to Bid for the two ATM leases to 
141 firms. Mr. Rhoades advises that the Airport 
decided to issue two separate leases, to operate 10 
to 11 ATMs each, in order to provide lease 
opportunities to as many companies as possible. 
Attachment II also explains why the Airport 
received only one bid to operate the ATMs at the 
Airport. 

Under the two proposed leases, Travelex America, 
Inc. would install and operate 20 to 22 ATMs, at 
ten different locations throughout the new 
International Terminal. The ATMs would operate 
24 hours a day, seven days a week. 

The Lessee would be required, at its sole cost, to 
design and construct the ATM enclosures, including 
all fixtures, furnishings and equipment necessary 
to Travelex America Inc.'s operations under the 
subject lease. Travelex America, Inc.'s costs for 
these improvements shall not be less than $5,000 
per ATM, or $100,000 to $110,000 for all 20 to 22 
ATMs. This minimum of $5,000 does not include 
the cost of purchasing and installing the ATMs 
themselves. According to Mr. Rhoades. the Airport 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



15 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

requires a minimum of $5,000 in improvements per 
ATM to ensure that Travelex America, Inc. 
constructs ATM enclosures consistent with the 
design, materials and quality of the new 
International Terminal. 

Comments: 1. Mr. Rhoades anticipates that all 20 to Si ATM- 

in the new International Terminal will be 
completed by August 15, 2000. Mr. Rhoades advises 
that the Airport's new International Terminal is 
now scheduled to open September 26, 2000, or 
three months later than the previously estimated 
opening date of June 26, 2000. in order to allow the 
Airport ti-ne to test the new facilities. 

2. Item 5, File 00-0236 of this report to the Finance 
and Labor Committee, pertains to another proposed 
Airport Lease to Travelex America, Inc. to provide 
Foreign <'urrcncy Exchange facilities at various 
locations in the Airport. 

3. In November of 1999, the voters of San Francisco 
approved Proposition F to prohibit banks and other 
financial institutions from charging a fee to persons 
who do not have an account with that bank or 
financial institution, for use of that bank or 
financial institution's automated teller machines in 
San Francisco. These fees are often in addition to 

harged to the customer by the customer's own 
bank. In response to passage of Proposition F. Bank 
of America, Wells Fargo and the California 
Bankers Association sued the City, arguing that 
the City had no authority to restrict the fees that 
banks charge customers. In November of 1999, a 
U.S. District Court' Judge granted a preliminary 
injunction preventing the City from enacting 
Proposition F. According to Mr. Marc Slavin of the 
City Attorney's Office, the City is currently 
appealins that injunction. Mr. Slavin advises that 
the City Attorney's Office has not yet formally 
determined whether Proposition Fs restriction on 
surcharge fees would apply to ATMs at the Airport. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

16 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



4. Mr. Slavin advises that the City Attorney's Office 
has not yet formally determined whether Travelex 
America, Inc. fits the definition of "bank or 
financial institution," as defined in Proposition F. 
However, if the City Attorney's Office determines 
that Travelex America, Inc. does fall within the 
purview of Proposition F and that Proposition F 
applies to ATMs at the Airport, and if Proposition F 
is upheld in the courts, then Travelex America, Inc. 
would be prohibited from charging the proposed 
surcharge of up to $1.50. 

As previously reported, the Airport has not 
estimated the amount of revenues that would be 
generated by such proposed surcharges. However, 
in accordance with the proposed lease provisions, 
the Airport would receive 33 percent of these 
surcharge revenues from Travelex America, Inc. 

5. The Budget Analyst notes that under the 
proposed leases, the Airport Director would have 
the authority to approve such transaction 
surcharges of up to $1.50 per customer use. Given 
the recent approval of Proposition F by the San 
Francisco voters, the current legal status of this 
issue, and the potential for Travelex America, Inc. 
to be affected by this Proposition, the Budget 
Analyst considers approval of the proposed 
resolution to be a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 



Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy 

matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

17 



Attachment I 
Pae;e 1 of T~ 



EXHIBIT B 
USE AND OPERATIONAL REQLIREMEN I S 



1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS : All ATM Services shall be provided on a non- 
exclusive basis, and Airport reserves the right to sell and to permit other Airport tenants to 
provide such services. Tenant may not offer any services not described below as beina 
"Required" or "Optional", without Director's prior consent. 

2. REQUIRED/OPTIONAL SERVICES : In the event Director permits any service to be 
sold or offered that is not listed below, or otherwise permits any other change in the 
Permitted Use, this Exhibit shall be deemed amended without need for a formal 
amendment of this Lease. Tenant shall be required to operate the Premises in accordance 
with the requirements, and offer the service, as described below 

A. Required Uses: 

Tenant shall provide the following services, on a non-exclusive basis: 

1 . Dispense United States currency 

2. Provide access to network support form no less than four of the following 
networks: Plus. Star, Cirrus. GlobalAccess and Interlink and accept no less than 
four of the following credit cards: American Express, Diner's Club. MasterCard. 
Visa. Discover Novus Card. 

3. Provide a written receipt of each transaction. 

4. Provide display functions on user operation. 

5. Display transaction fee surcharge information. 

B. Optional Uses: 

Tenant may provide, on a non-exclusive basis, the following "Optional Use, as 
approved in writing by the Director. Any "Optional Use" for which Tenant receives or 
charges a commission, surcharge or other fee shall be subject to payment of 
percentage rent as described in Section 4 of the Lease. 

1 Provide access to financial networks and credit cards other than those required 
under Exhibit B 2. A. 2. hereto. 

2. Dispense traveler's checks. 

3. Dispense United States postage stamps ilue. 

4. Provide tickets for San Francisco regional area cultural, performing arts and 
sporting events. 



3 



Dispense airline tickets. 



Exhibit B - Paiie 

18 



Attachment I 
Page 2 of 3 



6. Display animated software graphics 

7. Accept deposits to accounts. 

8. Handle debit card transactions. 

9. Other services consistent with the operations of ATMs that can be demonstrated to 
benefit customers and the traveling public, if and as approved by the Airport 
Director. 

3. PROHIBITED USES/SERVICE 

Tenant understands and agrees that the following products or services are not included 
within the Permitted Use, without the prior written consent of Director, which consent mav be 
granted or denied in Director's absolute and sole discretion. 

1 . Any and all sales of phone cards 

2. Dispense or exchange foreign currency 

3. Offer gambling of any kind 

4. Display advertising, except that electronic display of Tenant's services dunna 
"wait" times while transactions are processing shall not be deemed to be 
advertising prohibited hereunder 

5. Sell any type of merchandise 

4. OPERATIONS 

A. Hours of Operations 

Each ATM shall operate twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week including 
holidays. 

B. Maintenance and Operation of Units 

ATMs must be capable of handling, via telephone link, access to accounts for transactions 
including withdrawals, deposits and charges against credit lines. Without limiting the 
generality of Section 3.1 1 [Compliance with Laws], Tenant shall cause the operation of 
ATMs to be in compliance with all Governmental, Banking and FAA Regulations, including 
security requirements and Airport Rules and Regulations. Tenant shall be responsible for the 
secure transport of cash and receipts to and from each specific ATM location. Pursuant to 
FAA Regulations, no arms are permitted beyond the security checkpoints. Airport police shall 
not be responsible for escorting ATM service personnel. 

The ATMs and each location will be kept in clean, dust free, neat and first-class business-like 
and orderly condition at all times. The ATMs will be serviced and monitored in a manner that 
ensures the continual and uninterrupted operation of each unit. The Airport Director mav 
require more frequent servicing and stocking upon written notice to Tenant Failure to 
maintain and service units according to the aforesaid standard will result in the imposition o( 

il B Page 2 

1 Q 



Attachment I 
Page 3 of 3~ 

progressively stringent fines, as provided in Section 15.8 hereto. Emergency service response 
should be available within ninety (90) minutes of notice. Except for emergency response, 
servicing of the ATM units must be done dunng off-peak hours of 2:30 p.m. through 5:30 
p.m. and 8:30 p.m. through 5:30 a.m. or other hours as may be designated in writing from 
time to time by Director. 

C. Informational Displays 

Tenant shall provide and display at each ATM unit ail written directions necessary to instruct 
customers in the operation of the ATM. Tenant shall also provide, either through the ATM's 
electronic display or affixed to the ATM. information for the obtaining machine services 
and/or refunds. Tenant shall not place or install any racks, stands or other display on 
Airport property outside the Premises. 

D. Transaction Surcharges 

Tenant shall not charge Transaction Surcharges except as approved in writing by Director. 
The Maximum amount of any such Transaction Surcharge that may be approved shall be 
SI. 50 per Customer L'se. The amount of any such Transaction Surcharge and a clear 
description of the customers to which it applies must be posted in a clearly visible manner on 
the exterior of the ATM unit, or stated clearly through the ATM's electronic display 
requesting the Customer if they agree to continue the transaction with a Transaction 
Surcharge before the Customer Use is completed. Any Transaction Surcharges charged by 
Tenant must be consistent throughout the Airport and cannot exceed charges at other locations 
in Tenant's system. Transaction Surcharges shall be subject to Percentage Rent as described 
in the Lease. 

E. Management 

Tenant shall select and appoint a full-time experienced manager fully authorized to represent 
and act on behalf of Tenant providing an err ntact number on a twenty-four 

hour basis 

Tenant shall not staff the ATM locations, conduct other business, provide other services or 
sell any type of merchandise No brochures or adsertising will be displayed without prior 
written approval from the Airport Director 

The provisions set fourth in this Exhibit B shall be in a'ddition to and not in limitation of the 
other provisions in the Lease. 



Exhibit B - Paw 



Attachment II 
Page 1 of 2 



AIRPORT 

COMMISSION 

CITY AND COUNTY 

OF 5AN FRANCISCO 

WILLie L. JROwn.jH 
AMTOR 

HfNJIY E. 3ERMAN 

*Res/0£«r 

LARRY MAZZOIA 
VICC PHiilOtNT 

MICHAEL S STAUNSlCY 

LINDA S. CRAYTON 



San Francisco International Airport 



TOi 



FROM 



P.O. Box 8097 

San rrandsco. CA 94 128 

Tel 650.794. SOOO 

www.flysfo.com 



AIRPORT COMMISSION 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



MEMORANDUM 



Emilie Neumann 



DATE: February 24, 2000 



Budget Analyst's Office 
Jod Ballesteros 
SUBJECT: File #000235 - Airport ATM Services Lease 



Below please find the background information you requested regarding the Resolution 
before the Board of Supervisors approving the Airport's Lease for ATM Services. 

I 
SURCHARGES 



JOHN L.MARTIN 
JIA^OAT SiaCCTOR 



Trayelex America, Inc. plans to charge a surcharge as permitted in Exhibit B. The amount 
of the surcharge will not exceed 51.50. 

The: Airport will receive 33% of any surcharge Travelex charges. 

CURRENT ATM LEASE AGREEMENTS 



Barjk of America currently has two Leases with ATM Machines. Lease L86-0039 has two 
bank branches and eight ATM machines and a MAG of 5214,160 (plus additional surcharge 
and) transaction rents) and I ease L97-0039 has six ATM machines and a MAG of S 1 07,45 1 
(plus additional surcharge and transaction rents). 

Webs Fargo Bank Lease 97-0293 has 10 ATM machines and a MAG of 5187,472 (plus 
additional surcharge and transaction rents). 

The total amount of transaction fee and surcharge revenues generated by the leases in 
calendar year 1999 equaled $315,192. 



Attachment " 
Page Z ot 2 



Emilic Neumann; 
February 24, 2000 

Page 2 



ESTIMATED ANNUAL RENTAL REVENUES 

Travelex America, Inc. was the sole responsive bidder, and Travelex America, Inc. will execute 
both Leases, wita the bid amount of $241,500 which will be the minimum annual guarantee for 
each Lease for the first year. Travelex America, Inc. will pay the MAG for each Lease plus, 
additional surcharge and transaction rents. 

There are no estimated forecasts for revenues generated from transaction fees at this time as 
these fees are based on user volume. Due to the fact that the ATM machines will be located in a 
building that did'not exist previously, there is no historical data on which to make such forecasts. 

BIDDING PROCESS 

The Airport offered Invitations to Bid for the ATM services lease to 158 firms. Staff received 
one bid from Travelex America, Inc. for S24 1,500. 

Bank of .America and Wells Fargo Bank were invited to bid on these leases. However, both 
companies cited 'issues with the rent structure, the SI 30,000 Minimum Bid, and the outcome of 
legal activity surrounding Proposition *'F\ the initiative that would prohibit ATM surcharges in 
San Francisco. 



22 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 5 - File 00-0236 



Department: 
Item: 



Airport 

Resolution approving a new foreign currency 
exchange lease at the Airport between Travelex 
America, Inc. and the City and County of San 
Francisco, acting by and through its Airport 
Commission. 



Location: 



Purpose of Lease: 



Lessor: 



Lessee: 



Eleven different locations at the Airport, as 
identified in Attachment I, provided by the Airport. 

The proposed lease would provide approximately 
1,229 square feet of space to operate foreign 
currency exchanges in 11 locations at the Airport, 
as identified in Attachment I, provided by the 
Airport. 

City and County of San Francisco, acting by and 
through its Airport Commission. 

Travelex America, Inc., a Delaware Corporation 



No. of Sq. Ft. and 
Monthly Rental Revenues 
Payable by Travelex America 
to the Airport: 



The proposed lease would include approximately a 
total of 1,229 square feet to operate ten foreign 
currency exchange facilities and one office for 
administration, as explained in Attachment I. 
provided by the Airport. The total rental revenues 
to be paid by Travelex America to the Airport 
would be approximately $280 per square foot per 
month, or $343,958 per month ($4,127,500 
annually). 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Annual Rental 
Revenues Payable by 
Travelex America 
to the Airport: 



Term of Lease: 



Right of Renewal: 

Utilities and Janitorial 
Provided by Lessor: 



Description: 



Beginning from the first year of the lease, and 
through the duration of the five-year lease period, 
the base annual rent payable by Travelex America 
to the Airport will be the greater of the Minimum 
Annual Guarantee (MAG) of $4,127,500, subject to 
Consumer Price Index (CPI) annual adjustments, 
or a passenger-based fee equal to eighty-eight cents 
($0.88) multiplied by the total number of 
enplanements (the total number of passengers 
boarding airline carriers for international flights] 

Attachment II. provided by the Airport, shows: (a) 
the total estimated annual rental revenues from 
the eleven foreign currency exchange locations to 
be paid by Travelex America to the Airport 
annually, and (b) the total estimated revenues of 
J, 355, 871 to be paid to the Airport over the five 
year lease term. As shown in Attachment II, these 
estimates are based on the Minimum Annual 
Guarantee and are adjusted upward using 
projected increases in the Consumer Price Index 
(CPI). Attachment II also lists the two firms 
currently holding leases for foreign currency 
exchange locations at the Airport and the 
Minimum Annual Guarantee paid by each lessee. 

The proposed lease would commence on September 
26, 2000. The lease would be for a five year period, 
terminating on September 25, 2005. 

The Airport would have sole discretion to grant two 
two-year extensions for the lease. 

The Lessee pays for the costs of all utilities and 
janitorial services. 

On September 21, 1999. the Airport Commission 
requested bids for a lease to operate currency 
exchange facilities at 11 different locations in the 
Airport, as identified in Attachment I. 
Subsequently, on December 21. 1999 the Airport 
Commission adopted a resolution awarding the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Tenant Improvements: 



lease to Travelex America, Inc, the highest 
responsive bidder (Resolution No. 99-0449). 
According to Mr. Bob Rhoades of the Airport, the 
Airport issued Invitations to Bid to 129 firms for 
the foreign currency exchanges at 11 locations in 
the Airport (See Attachment II). Attachment II also 
contains a list of all firms that submitted bids for 
this concession and the Minimum Annual 
Guarantees of each bidder. According to Mr. 
Rhoades, all firms submitting bids agreed to pay 
the greater of the Minimum Annual Guarantee of 
$4,127,500 or the $0.88 per passenger fee, as 
outlined in the proposed lease. However these firms 
were not required to include in their bids revenue 
projections based on this passenger fee. 

Travelex America would be required to invest a 
minimum of $184,200 in improvements to the 
subject lease space. This minimum investment 
amount of $184,200 is based on $200 a square foot 
for 921 square feet to be used for currency exchange 
facilities (out of the total 1,229 square feet covered 
by the subject lease). The minimum investment 
does not apply to the remaining 308 square feet 
designated for office space. According to Mr. 
Rhoades, these improvements include constructing 
the foreign currency exchange facilities, providing 
trade fixtures and hanging signs. Mr. Rhoades 
advises that the Airport requires a minimum of 
$200 a square foot in improvements to ensure that 
Travelex America constructs currency exchange 
facilities consistent with the design, materials and 
quality of existing Domestic Terminals and the new 
International Terminal. 



Comments: 



1. Mr. Rhoades anticipates that all 11 foreign 
currency exchange facilities will be completed by 
August 15, 2000. Mr. Rhoades advises that the 
Airport's new International Terminal is now 
scheduled to open September 26, 2000, or three 
months later than the previously estimated 
opening date of June 26, 2000, in order to allow the 
Airport time to test the new facilities. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



2. Item No. 4, File 00-0235 of this report to the 
Finance and Labor Committee, pertains to two 
additional proposed Airport leases to Travelex 
America to provide automated teller machines 
(ATMs) in the Airport's new International 
Terminal. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment I 



: 



EXHIBIT A 
PREMISES 






--"•c'-'.-i?" 



^EE^E^C^MDISfS® 



TERMINAL 



LOCATION 



New International Terminal I.3.003F- Great Hall North ticket island facing north 
Pre-Security , across from food court. 

Approximately 69 square foot area. 



New International Terminal 
Pre-Secuntv 



I.3.014E- Great Hall South ticket island facing south 
across from food court. 
Approximately 67 square foot area. 



New International Terminal 

Pre-Security 

& Office space 



I.3.084D- North Shoulder Building next to restrooms, 

hair salon and Discretionary Store. 

Approximately 150 square foot area. 

I3.084.E- Office space located behind foreign currency 

retail space I3.084D. Approximately 30S square foot 

area. 



New International Terminal 
Boarding .Area A 
Post-Secuntv 



A.3.023- Mid-Terminal next to food cluster across from 

phones. 

Approximately 13S square foot area. 



New International Terminal 
Boarding Area G 
Two Locations 
Post-Security 



( 1 ) G.3.004K- Next to large duty free shop and 
restaurant/"bar before people mover. 
Approximately 2 1 3 square foot area. 

(2) One (1) Mobile Cart Location. * 
(not shown) 



New International Terminal 

Arrivals 

Post-Secuntv 



I.2.024B- Southwest lobby area, behind Lodging 
Transportation and Attraction board across from 
escalators to Great Hall approximately 134 square foot 
area. Space for one Automated Foreign Currency 
Exchange Machine at this location 



New International Terminal 
.Arrivals 



I.2.007C- Northwest lobby area, behind Lodging 
Transportation and Attraction board across from 
escalators to Great Hall approximately 150 squa: 
area. Space for one Automated Foreign Curren 
Exchange Machine at this location. 



Domestic Terminals 



Approximately Two (2) Mobile Cart Locations. 
(not shown) 



(See attached drawings) 

TOTAL: 10 Locations (Approximately 921 sq. ft.) and 1 Office (Approximately 308 sq. ft.) 

• * All mobile cart locations shall be as designated by the Airport from time to time. 



Exhibit A Page I 



Attachment II 
Paee 1 ot !3 



San Francisco International Airpon 



COMMISSION 

CITY AND COUNTY 
Of SAN FRANCISCO 

WILLtf I tnOWN. JR. 
rtCNRY I.IUMAM 

mtnatMT 

LARRY MAilOLA 
ViCf »«f J/OfNT 



LINDA S CRAVTON 



JOHN L UJIRTIN 

AJJI/>0»roi»fC"O» 



P.O. ao« 8097 
San Francisco. O* 94123 
Td 650 794.J000 
Fax 650 794.5005 
■yww >itocom 



AIRPORT COiVLVDSSION 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



MK.MORAM)! M 



TOi Emibc Neumann 

Budget Analyst's Office 



DATE: February 24, 2000 



FROM: Jon Balleslcros 

SUBJECT: File ^000236 - Airpon Foreign Currency Exchange Lease 

Belcjw please find the background information you requested regarding the Resolution 
before the Board of Supervisors approving the Airport's Foreign Currencv Lease. 

REVENUE ESTIMATES 

The foreign Currency Exchange rent terms are the greater of the Minimum .Annual 
Guarantee or the Passenger-Based Fee. The first year MAG for Travelex America, Inc. 
is S4.127.500. The Passenger-Based is equal to S0.88 multiplied by total number of 
International Passengers Enplaned on Intemanonal flights per year. 

Below are the projected Imernarional Passengers Enplaned and projected annual 
fees for the next five years and the total projected Passenger Based Fee 
Revenue: 



Year Projected Enplaned 

! Passengers In Millions 


X S0.88 

Fee 


j Projected Annual 
Passenger- Based Fees 


2001 3.7 






S3.256.000 


2002 i 4.0 






S3.520.000 


2003 I 4.3 






S3.784.000 


2004 1 4.7 






S4. 136.000 


2005 I 5.0 






i 54.400,000 


TOTAL PROTECTED FEE REVENl 


r 




! S19.096.000 



Attachment II 
Page Z ot 3 



Emilie Neumanr 
February 24, 
Page 2 



20(0 



Below are the projected annual MAG rents with CPI adjustments and the total Revenue from 
projected MAG rents: 



Year j 
Adjusted 


Current 
MAG 


Projected 
CPI 


Projected 
Adjustment 


Projected New MAG 
after CPI adjustment 


2001 i $4,127,500 


4.0% 1 5165,100 


54,292,600 


2002 ! 


54,292,600 


4.0% 1 5171.704 


54.464.304 


2003 i 


S4,464,304 


4.0% 


5178,572 


54,642,876 


2004 


54,628,876 


4.0% 


5185,715 


54,828,591 


TOTAL PROJECTED MAG REVENUE 


522,355.871 



Due to the initial MAG offering of 54,1 27,500 and subsequent annual CPI adjustments 
the Passenger-Based Fee is not expected to become greater than the current MAG. 



CURRENT FOREIGN CURRENCY EXCHANGE LEASES 

There are two companies that currently hold leases with the Airport for currency exchange: Bank of 
America and Tejetrip. 

Bank of America Lease L86-0039 from 1987 is currently month to month with two foreign currency 
locations in the International Terminal (one branch pre-secunty and a satellite office post security in 
departures) and a MAG of $2 1 4, 1 60. 

i 
Teletrip Lease L93-0060 from 1993 is currently month to month with five locations (three in the 
International Teijminal, one office prc-security, one satellite in arrivals, one cart post security and 
two carts located in the North Terminal with a current MAG of 5856,622. 

In 1993, Travelex partnered with Mutual of Omaha Insurance to take over management of the 
Foreign Currency branches in the U.S. (The Airport foreign currency division of Mutual of 
Omaha is known as 'Tele-Trip"). In 1999 Travelex purchased Tele-Trip, Travelex will continue 
to manage the current leases signed under Tele-Trip until the leases have expired. 

It is anticipated ihat both leases will terminate with the closing of the existing International Terminal 
on September 25, 2000. 



?Q 



Attachment I. 
Pape 3 of 3 



Emilie Neumann 
February 24, 20(jo 
Page 3 



BIDDING PROCESS 

The Airport offered Invitations to Bid for the currency exchange facility lease to 129 firms. 
The following companies that submitted bids for this concession: 

• American Express tendered a non-responsive bid of S 1 ,000,000. 

• ICE Currency Services USA tendered a bid of 53,251 ,878. 

• Travelex Amkrica Inc. tendered the highest apparent responsive bid of S4, 127,500. 



in 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

ItemS -File 00-0268 

Note: This proposed resolution was continued by the Finance and Labor 
Committee at its meeting of March 1, 2000. 



Department: 
Item: 



Location: 
Purpose of Lease: 

Lessor: 

Lessee: 



Airport 

Resolution approving the North Terminal Hub 
Principal Retail Concession lease between Host 
International, Inc. and the City arid County of San 
Francisco, acting by and through its Airport 
Commission. 

North Terminal Hub of the Airport 

Concession space for a specialty store and a 
newsstand (See Description Section below) 

City and County of San Francisco through the 
Airport Commission 

Host International 



No. of Sq. Ft. and 

Monthly Rental Revenues 

Payable by 

Host International 

to the Airport: 



A total of 4,984 square feet at two locations in the 
Airport's North Terminal Hub, consisting of 3,784 
square feet for a specialty store and 1,200 square feet 
for a newsstand. The total rental revenues to be paid 
by Host International to the Airport based on the 
Minimum Annual Guarantee would be 
approximately $42.50 per square foot per month, or 
$212,500 per month ($2,550'000 annually). 



Annual Rental Revenues 

Payable by 

Host International 

to the Airport: 



The proposed lease would require Host International 
to pay the Airport the greater of a Minimum Annual 
Guarantee (MAG) of $2,550,000 for each year of the 
five year lease term, or a percentage of gross 
revenues realized by Host International. According 
to the lease, the annual percentage of gross revenues 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

is 12% for the first $500,000, 14% between $500,000 
and $1,000,000, and 16% for all gross revenues in 
excess of $1,000,000. The terms of the proposed lease 
are similar to the terms of concession leases 
previously approved by the Board of Supervisors for 
the Airport. The subject lease also provides for 
annual increases in the Minimum Annual Guarantee 
based on increases in the U.S. Department of Labor 
Department Store Inventory Price Index-Soft Goods. 1 

Term of Lease: The proposed lease is scheduled to commence in 

December of 2000, upon completion of the required 
renovation work by Host International. The lease 
would be for a five-year period, terminating in 
December of 2005. 

The five-year lease term begins on the Rent 
Commencement Date, defined in the lease as the 
first day both spaces covered by the subject lease are 
fully operational. According to Ms. Gigi Ricasa of the 
Airport, the specialty store is expected to be 
operational by June 10, 2000. However, the 
newsstand is not expected to be operational until 
December of 2000 due to the North Terminal/Thumb 
Expansion. Ms Ricas.a advises that prior to 
completion of the newsstand and the Rent 
Commencement Date, expected in December of 2000, 
Host International will pay to the Airport a prorated 
rent based on the 3,784 square feet for the operating 
specialty store (the total 4.984 square feet covered by 
the subject lease less the 1,200 square feet for the 
newsstand). 



Right of Renewal: 

Utilities and Janitor 
Provided by Lessor: 



None 



The Lessee will pay for the costs of all utilities and 

janitorial sew: 



1 According to Ms. Gigi Ricasa of the Airport, soft goods are defined as retail goods such a 
toys, sunglasses, and books. The Airport has determined that this price index is the most 
appropriate one to applv to leases for Airport concessions. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Description: 



The proposed resolution would approve a concession 
lease for Host International to operate one specialty 
store and one newsstand in the North Terminal Hub 
of the Airport. Under the terms of the subject lease, 
Host International has identified the following five 
retail "concepts" to be sold in the specialty store: (1) 
Souvenir/Gift Items; (2) High-End Retail; (3) Bay 
Area-Northern California Specialty Items; (4) 
Museum-Related Products; and (5) Aviation-Related 
Products. 

The proposed lease would require Host International 
to sell the following at the newsstand: local, daily 
and out-of-town newspapers; 200 separately 
displayed periodicals and magazines; 300 separately 
displayed hardback and paperback books, plus 
candy, tobacco, health aids, and souvenir items. 

Host International would directly operate the first 3 
of the 5 concepts listed above for the specialty store 
and all of the newsstand, totaling 3,488 square feet, 
or 70 percent of the total 4,984 square feet covered 
by the subject lease. Host International would 
sublease operation of the two remaining concepts in 
the specialty store to two Disadvantaged Business 
Enterprises (DBEs): 1-5 Concessions, LLC and Sun 
Shade Holding Corporation. The total 1,496 square 
feet sub-leased by the DBE companies would be 
approximately 30 percent of the total 4,984 square 
footage covered by the lease. 

The following table identifies the two retail spaces 
covered by the subject lease, the five concepts for the 
specialty store, the types of goods sold by each 
business, and the square footage occupied by each 
business. 



Concession 


Operator 


Concept 


Sq. Feet 


Specialty Store 


Host 


Souvenir / Gift Items 


2,288 


High-End Retail 


Bay Area & Northern 
California Items 


1-5 Concessions 


Aviation Products 


748 


Sun Shade 


Museum Products 


748 


Total Sq. Ft for Specialty Store 


3.784 


Newsstand 


Host | Newsstand 


1.200 


Total Square Feet for Lease 


4.984 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 1, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Tenant 
Improvements: 



Host International would be required to invest a 
minimum of $150 per square foot to renovate the 
subject lease space, or a total of $747,600 for the 
4,984 square feet covered by the subject lease. 

Under the terms of the proposed lease, Host 
International would have the option to request 
Airport approval for two temporary facilities to sell 
merchandise during such renovations, estimated to 
take 90 days. During such time. Host would pay the 
Airport a percentage rent of 20 percent of gross 
revenues. In addition, Ms. Ricasa states that the 
Airport plans to give Host International permission 
to operate a temporary facility to sell newsstand 
merchandise during the period that the North 
Terminal Hub/Thumb Expansion delays the turnover 
of space to Hosl International. Host International 
will pay to the Airport 20 percent of gross revenues 
earned from the temporary newsstand facility. 



Comment: 



According to Ms. Ricasa, on September 21. 1999 the 
Airport issued Invitations to Bid to 60 firms for the 
subject concession lease, as stated in the Attachment 
to this report, provided by the Airport. Subsequently, 
on December 21, 1999, the Airport Commission 
adopted a resolution awarding the lease to Host 
International, the highest responsive and qualified 
bidder. The Attachment also contains a list of all 
firms that submitted bids for this concession and 
their Minimum Annual Guarantees. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment Pa°;e 1 of 




San rrartcsco International Airport 



VIA FACSIMILE. (4151 252-0416 
DATE: February 23, 2000 



AIBPOIIT 



TO: 



FROM: 



-0. Eci im/ 

S^ri fiafx.sco. CA 9<t*2S 

> 6:0. 7?d 5CQQ 

.vww.,Wc.\c=hi 



.xmxotmit Subject: 



Emiiy Newman 
Budget Anaiyst Office 

• Qt 

Gigi Ricasa >->• 

Airport Concession Development and Management 

North Terminal Hub Principal Retail Concession Lease (the "Lease"') 



This Lease was developed based on the compatibility with passenger needs and 
desires, current marketing and retaii trends, demographics of the traveling public, 
the economy, the existing concession the surrounding area and proposals received 
from the community or retail industry. 

Standard Marketing Procedure fcranv Concession Ooccrtunit]/ 

After Airport Commission approves staff to conduct a pre-bid/prcposal conference, 
Concession Development and Management ("CDM") staff mails a letter of interest 
to a mailing list that has been generated by CDM that relates to the concept of the 
concession opportunity. The interested parties who respond to the letter of interest 
are placed on a more specified mail list. The specified mail list receives copies of 
pre-'bids and bid documents. For this Lease, the draft Request for Qualification and 
Proposal and Bid ("RFC/P and Bid") Documents and the final RFQ/P/ and Bid 
Documents were mailed to approximately 60 people who responded to the letter of 
interest. There were 32 attendees at the public informational conference held in 
August 1SS9. 

Competitive Process 

The competitive process used for this Lease was a proposal and a bid process. 
Interested parties were each required to submit a proposal, which requires for four 
to five retail concepts in the bigger space and a newsstand for the smaller space. 
The other main requirement was that the successful Proposer sublease 30% of the 
total square footage to Disadvantaged Business Enterprise(s). If the croccsal(s) 
wss deemed acceptable, the proposer advances to the second stage, which is the 
bid stage. The Proposer's bid form is opened at a public meeting and at this stage, 
whoever submits the highest bid amount is announced the apparent successful 
bidder. This Bidder then submits additional cacerwcrk regarding Human Rights 
Commission Requirement to ensure that this Bicder meets these requirements. 



Attachment 
Page 2 of 2 

Memo to emily Newman 
PeCivary 23, 2CC0 
Page 2 



Result of RFQ/P/ and Bid 

There were two companies who submitted proposals: O Host International, Inc. and © 
Pacific Gateway Concessions, LLC. Both proposals were deemed acceptable, 
therefore, both Proposers' bid forms were opened, and the result was: 

Bidder Bid Amount 

Host International, Inc. 52. 550, COO 

Pacific Gateway Concessions, LLC S1 .4C8.SS9.99 

The Airport Commission formally awarded the Lease to Host International, Inc. en 
December 21, 19S9. 

Highest Bidder and its Proposed Subtenant 

Host proposed four concepts in the bigger space, and they are: © Souvenir 
merchandise. © Museum items, © Aviation items © California regional packaged feed 
products, and © High end retail. Host will sublease two or the concepts tc the 
following D8Es: I-5 Concessions, LLC and Sun Shade Holding Corporation. The rent 
for the DBE is as foilows: Tenant shall charge the DBE Subtenant, as rent, no more 
than the same tiered rent percentage to the DBEs, which is as fellows: 

■ 1 2% of Gross Revenues from the subleased premises achieved up to and 
including $500,000; plus 

• 14% of Gross Revenues from the subleased premises achieved from $500, 0C " 
up to and including 51.000,000; plus 

■ 1 6% of Gross Revenues from the subleased premises over $1 ,000,000. 

Please do not hesitate to contact me at {650} 794-4505 if you have further questions. 
Thank you for your assistance in obtaining Board of Supervisors' approval on this 

Lease. 



•** 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 7 - File 00-0318 

Department: Airport 

Item: Resolution approving the New International Fine Dining 

Restaurant Lease between GQC Holdings, Inc., a certified 
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise, and the City and 
County of San Francisco, acting by and through its Airport 
Commission. 

Location: New International Terminal of the Airport 

Purpose of Lease: The proposed lease would provide approximately 6,715 
square feet of space to operate one fine dining restaurant at 
one location. 

Lessor: City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through 

its Airport Commission. 

Lessee: GQC Holdings, a California corporation 

No. of Sq. Ft. and 

Monthly Rental Revenues 

Payable by GQC Holdings 

to the Airport: Approximately 6,715 square feet to operate a restaurant at 

one location in the Airport's New International Terminal. 
The total rental revenues to be paid by GQC Holdings, Inc. 
to the Airport based on the Minimum Annual Guarantee 
would be approximately $1.67 per square foot per month, or 
$11,192 per month ($134,300 annually). According to Mr. 
Bob Rhoades of the Airport, the Minimum Annual 
Guarantee of $1.67 per square foot per month is less than 
the rent per square foot of other concession leases, due to 
the high costs of operating a fine dining restaurant and the 
large number of square feet (6,715) covered by the subject 
lease. 

Annual Rental Revenues 

Payable by GQC Holdings 

to the Airport: The proposed lease would require GQC Holdings, Inc. to 

pay to the Airport the greater of a Minimum Annual 
Guarantee (MAG) of $134,300 for each year of the ten year 
and four month lease term, or a percentage of gross 
revenues realized by GQC Holdings. According to the lease, 
the annual percentage of gross revenues is 4% for the firsl 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

"}7 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



$1,000,000 and 6% for all gross revenues in excess of 
$1,000,000. The subject lease also provides for annual 
increases in the Minimum Annual Guarantee based on 
increases in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). 

According to Mr. Rhoades, the Airport estimates that for 
the first year of the proposed lease, the percentage of gross 
revenues realized by CQG Holdings, as detailed above, will 
exceed the Minimum Annual Guarantee of $134,300 by 
$109,700. The Airport would thus receive for the first year 
of the lease an estimated percentage rent of $244,000 based 
on GQC Holdings' estimated annual gross receipts of 
$4,400,000. 



Term of Lease: 



According to Mr. Rhoades, the Airport established the 
amount of the Minimum Annual Guarantee and the 
percent of gross revenues to be paid to the Airport for the 
fine dining lease, and that all firms submitting proposals 
were required to meet those conditions Mr Rhoades 
advises that the Minimum Annual Guarantee of $134,300 
and the percent gross revenues of 4% for the first 
$1,000,000 and 6% for all gross revenues in excess of 
$1,000,000 therefore applied to all firms that submitted 
proposals to the Airport for the fine dinm. \ccording 

to Mr Rhoades, the firms submitting proposals were not 
required to submit gross revenue projections. 

The proposed Lease would commence on September 26, 
2000. The lease would be for a ten year, four month period, 
terminating on January 25, 2011. 



Right of Renewal: 



None 



Utilities and Janitor 

Provided by Lessor: The Lessee pays for the costs of all utilities and janitorial 
services. 



Description: 



On September 21. 1999, the Airport Commission adopted a 
resolution awarding the New International Terminal Fine 
Dining Restaurant Lease to GQC Holdings. Inc. (Resolution 
No. 99-0465). The fine dining lease was one of 16 leases the 
Airport awarded to San Francisco and Bay Area firms to 
operate food and beverage facilities in the new 
International Terminal. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



IS 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

According to Mr. Rhoades, in 1998 the Airport selected the 
firm Pacific Gateway Partnership, through a formal 
Request for Qualifications/Proposals process, to conduct an 
outreach program for selecting food and beverage 
operations. As outlined in Attachment I, provided by Mr. 
Rhoades, Pacific Gateway Partnership sent invitations to 
participate to more than 600 interested parties in February 
of 1999. After a process of narrowing down the pool of 
applicants, as described in Attachment I, in September of 
1999, an Airport-approved committee chose 16 firms for 
food and beverage leases in the new International 
Terminal. According to Mr. Rhoades, each firm was 
required to: (1) have owned/managed food and beverage 
businesses for at least 3 of the last 5 years, and (2) 
guarantee annual gross revenues of at least $1,000,000. 
Mr. Rhoades advises that the selection committee also 
based their decision on the quality and look of each food 
and beverage company, requiring detailed proposals from 
applicants and making site visits to evaluate food, service, 
kitchens, and general environment. 

Attachment I, provided by the Airport, outlines the process 
for choosing both the selection committee and the firms to 
be awarded food and beverage leases. According to Mr. 
Rhoades, two firms in addition to GQC Holdings submitted 
full proposals for the fine dining lease, Chevy's Restaurant 
and California Grill. Attachment I explains why the 
committee chose GQC Holdings for the fine dining lease. 
Attachment II lists the members of the selection committee. 

Under the terms of the subject lease, GQC Holdings will 
operate a high-quality restaurant, serving quality food and 
beverages and including a full bar. According to Mr. 
Rhoades, this is the first time the Airport has offered a 
lease for high-end fine dining. 

Tenant 

Improvements: GQC Holdings would be required to invest a minimum of 

$250 per square foot in improvements to the subject lease 
space, or a total of $1,678,750 for the 6,715 square feet 
covered by the subject lease. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Comment: According to Mr. Rhoades, the restaurant will be completed 

by the scheduled opening date for the Airport's new 
International Terminal of September 26, 2000. Mr. 
Rhoades advises that the September 26, 2000 opening date, 
three months later than the previously estimated opening 
date of June 26, 2000, will allow the Airport time to test the 
new facilities. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment I 



NEW INTERNATIONAL TERMINAL COMPLEX 
FOOD AND BEVERAGE OPERATOR SELECTION PROCESS 



Mid - 1 998 Airport issued RFQ/RFP to select firm to conduct outreach 

program to identify food/beverage operators. 

Dec, 1998 After Airport panel review, Airport Commission approved 

selection of Pacific Gateway Partnership ("PGP") to conduct 
outreach. 

Jan. - Feb., 1999 Extensive outreach conducted by PGP, including meetings in 
San Francisco and on Peninsula. 

Feb. 1 999 Phase I of process involved the transmittal of over 600 

questionnaires to interested parties. 

March 1999 255 respondents to Phase I 

Mar. - April, 1999 Airport approved selection panel (attached) screened Phase I 
respondents, including site visits, and selected 110 
respondents as being qualified for Phase II. 

June, 1999 57 submissions were received under Phase II which were 

evaluated by selection panel. 

Sept. 1999 Airport Commission, based upon recommendation of 

Selection Panel and Review by the Airport Director, awarded 
food/beverage leases to 16 San Francisco and Bay Area 
firms, 15 of which are minority or woman-owned businesses 
(DBEs). The Fme Dining Lease was awarded to GQC 
Holding, Inc. 

GQC Holding, Inc. is a San Francisco based, minority-owned firm that has 
demonstrated exceptional ability to develop and operate fme dining facilities. 
Shanghai 1930 and Betelnut are two examples of the type of facilities that the firm 
operates in San Francisco. 



m:\rhoades\tbselect-dcc 



rt L. Lell_ lllllCll l- 



, ACIFIC 
G ATEWAY 

PARTNERSHIP 






J 2 ■ 



- 



: - 1 : 



- -z e - 1 '' '■--'. 



zz: rr l« |c5C! ~c-c-_i 



Selection Committee Members 

Victor Escobedo has extensive experience as a restaurant manager and 
owner. He recently opened Papalote Mexican Griil in San Francsco, and 
his family owns and operates the Ceila's and Femando's Restaurants 
throughout the Bay Area. 

MichaeJ Fang has been in the tounst phctograpny business since 1981 
with the Red & White ReeL He is owner of C-abcakes & Sweets, a small 
fast-food seafood restaurant located at Pier 39. 

Grant Mldcins served as Director of the San Francisco Human Rights 
Commission from 1975-88. Previously, he has been President of SERJ, 
Local 4C0, Deputy Director of the Mayer's Criminal Justice Council, and 
President of the San Frandsco Cvil Service Commission. Mr. Mickins 
currently serves as an Independent consultant. 

Patrick Quek is President and C50 of Hospitality Asset Advisors 
International and PKF Consulting. He is a recognized authority on the 
As;a/Paafic hotel market. Mr. Quek is active in numerous civic and 
industry committees locally and nationally. 

Cleopatra Vaughns, RN, is the Chairman of the Board of the San 
Francsco Convention & Visiters Bureau. She is the manager of Community 
Relations for Blue Shield of California. Ms. Vaughns is the National 
President of the National Association of Negro eusiness & Professional 
Women's Clubs, Inc. 

Alicia Wang is first Vice-Chair of the California Democratic Party, a 
member cf the Democratic National Committee, and a member of the 
Association of State Democratic Chairs. She is a (acuity member at San 
Francisco Oty College. 

Robert Wilhelm is a recently retired executive of Westin Hotels and 
Resorts, where he was Managing Director of the Westin St. Francs Hctei 
en Union Square. He has been Chairman of the Eoard for the San 
Francsco Convention & Visitors Bureau and Director cf the San Francsco 
Chamber of Comme r ce. He currently works with Lombard Hclcirc-; [nc 

John Yee is Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the San 
Francisco Giants. He played an integral roie in structuring the pnvate 
financing for the new Pacific Beil Park. Previously, Mr. Yee served as Vice 
Fresident of Rnanca and Administration for the San Frandsca Convention 
&. Visitors Bureau. 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 8 - File 00-0289 



Department: 



Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Budget: 



Fire Department 
Department of Public Works 
Department of Parking and Traffic 
Water Department 

Hearing to consider the release of reserved funds in 
the amount of $59,120 to fund emergency repairs of 
the Auxiliary Water Supply System (AWSS) facilities 
located at the intersections of Third and Evans 
Streets and Evans and Selby Streets. 

$59,120 

Fire Protection Systems Improvement General 
Obligation (GO) Bonds, previously appropriated and 
placed on reserve by the Board of Supervisors 

The summary budget for the subject reserved funds is 
as follows: 



Third Street and Evans Street 


$26,083 
3.477 


Department of Public Works Staff - 

Planning and Design 
Department of Parking & Traffic Staff - 

Traffic Routing Plans 

Third/Evans Subtotal 

Evans Street and Selbv Street 

Department of Public Works Staff - 

Planning and Design 
Department of Parking & Traffic Staff - 

Traffic Routing Plans 

Evans/Selby Subtotal 

Total Project Budget 


$29,560 

$26,083 
3.477 


S29.560 


$59,120 ! 



Attachment I to this report, provided by the 
Department of Public Works (DPW). contains details 
to support the summary budget above. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Description: 



Comments: 



The subject reserved funds would be used for the 
planning and design work needed for the repair of two 
ruptured Auxiliary Water Supply System (AWSS) 
pipes at the intersections of Third Street/Evans Street 
and Evans Street/Selby Street. The AWSS is a system 
of reservoirs, cisterns, pipelines, pump stations, and 
fireboats, comprising the source of water supply for 
fire protection in emergency situations. 

The City sold a total of $46 .2 million in Fire 
Protection Systems Improvement General Obligation 
Bonds ($31 million in 1987 and $15.2 million in 1991) 
to finance improvements to the City - Auxiliary Water 
Supply System. In March of 1996, the Board of 
Supervisors approved a supplemental appropriation 
ordinance for S3. 907. 900 (File 101-95-61) from 
accrued interesl from the Fire Protection Systems 
Improvement Bonds for four categories of capital 
improvement projects: (1) repair and improvement of 
the Fireboat Phoenix. (2) implementation of motorized 
AWSS control valves, (3) repairs to the AWSS w 
storage tank, and (4) emergency repairs of AWSS 
facilities. The subject requested release of reserved 
funds would come from category (4) emergency 
repairs of AWSS facilities. 

1 According to Mr. Patrick Rivera of the Department 
of Public Works, two ruptured 12-inch diameter pipes 
were discovered in the Auxiliary Water Supply 
System (AWSS) pipelines, at the intersections of 
Evans and Selby Streets and Third and Evans Streets 
on January 2, 2000 and February 2, 2000 
respectively. Mr. Rivera advises that the Fire 
Department conducted initial investigations after 
receiving reports of water leaks. After the source of 
each leak was located, the main valves on both ends 
of the ruptured pipes were closed, shutting off the 
high-pressure water supply to Bayview Hunters 
Point. According to Mr. Bill Gunn of the Fire 
Department, the disabled ruptured pipes significantly 
hamper fire protection for Bayview Hunters Point 
since the two pipes are the only direct water sources 
for fire emergencies in the district. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



2. According to Mr. Rivera, during the time since 
DPW and the Fire Department originally submitted 
the subject request for a release of reserved funds, 
repairs have already begun on the ruptured pipe at 
Third and Evans Streets. Such repairs will cost an 
estimated total of $24,982. This amount of $24,982 to 
repair the leak is $4,578 less than the original request 
in the subject proposal of $29,560 for the design and 
planning necessary to repair the ruptured pipe. 
According to Mr. Rivera, as stated in Attachment II, 
after further investigation. DPW and the Fire 
Department learned that the leak at Third and Evans 
Streets was less serious than they had first 
anticipated and that they could repair the leak at a 
lower cost, without going through the design and 
planning process. According to Mr. Rivera, DPW and 
the Fire Department believed it was important to 
begin the emergency repairs as soon as possible since 
Bayview Hunters Point depends on the two ruptured 
AWSS pipes for fire protection. 

A summary budget for the repairs at Third and Evans 
Streets is as follows: 



Repairs: Third and Evans Streets 




Labor 


Fire Department 


$10,254 


Water Department 


6.554 


DPW - Bureau of Street & Sewer Repair 


2.000 


Labor Total: 


$18,808 


Equipment 


3,490 


Materials 


2,684 


TOTAL BUDGET COSTS: 


$24,982 



Attachment III, provided by DPW, contains details to 
support the summary budget shown above. According 
to Mr. Rivera, it is standard procedure for DPW to use 
part of the subject requested reserved funds to 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



reimburse the Fire Department, the Water 
Department and the Department of Parking and 
Traffic for their work, as stated in Attachment III. 

3. The proposed release of reserved funds should be 
amended to account for the repairs that have already 
begun at Third and Evans Streets, as described in 
Comment No. 2 above. The original proposed release 
of reserved funds of $29,560 for design and planning 
for repairs of the AWSS system at Third and Evans 
Streets should be reduced by | the current 
cost estimate of $24,982 to repair the leak. The 
amended total subject request would thus be 

or $4,578 less than the original request of $59,120, 
for: (1) repairs at Third and Evans Streets ($24,9? 
and (2) design and planning for repair- at Evans and 
Selby Stn 

4. According to Mr Rivera, and as detailed in 
Attachment I provided by DPW. the subject funds 
totaling ! llocated for repairing the remaining 
ruptured pipe at Evans and Selby Streets would be 
expended for: (a) DPW staff to prepare plans and 
specifications for the repair of the 12-inch diameter 
pipe ($26,083): and (b) Department of Parking and 
Traffic (DPT) to prepare traffic routing plans at the 
location Also included in the cost for both 
DPW and DPT is coordination with utility companies 
and the DPW Bureau of Streets and Mapping for 
preparation of construction permits 

5. According to Mr. Rivera, the design and planning 
for repair work on the remaining ruptured pipe at 
Evans and Selby Streets would begin as soon as the 
Board approves the subject request for release of 

ived funds. DPW intends to request a second 
release of reserved bond funds for the actual 
construction work to repair the ruptured pipe. The 
construction to repair the leak would begin 
approximately in May of 2000. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed release of reserved funds to 
reduce the requested amount by $4,578 from $59,120 
to $54,542 as stated in Comment No. 3 above. 

2. Approved the proposed release of reserved funds as 
amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment I 



Department of Public Works 
Engineering Design Services 

EVANS AND SELBY DESIGN FEE ESTIMATE 



Department 



Classification 



Classification 
Number 



Number of 
Hours 



Hourly Rate 
(including 
overhead) 



Extension 



Public Works 



Associate Mechanical Engineer 



525a 



85 



577 






Public Works 



Senior Mecnamcal Engineer 



5253 



10 



S103 



SI. 030 



Public Works 



Engineenng Assoc. 



5346 



36 



557 






; Public Works 



Senior Clerk 



1446 



■-; 



S45 



r:o 



Parking & Traffic 



iAssoc. Traffic Engineer 



5228 



10 



560 



Parking A Traffic 



Traffic Engineer 



5230 



37 



S69 



S5C 

32.553 



Parking & Traffic 



i Senior Traffic Engineer 



5232 



S31 



Public Works 



I Project Manager II 



5504 



85 



S84 



: 24 

57.140 



Public Works 



C.vil Engineer 

i (Hazardous Specifications) 



5208 



31 



S91 



52.321 



Public Works 



! Associate Civil Engineer 
i(Soec Review) 



52C6 



75 



S77 



55.775 



TOTAL 



S29.560 



3RD AND EVANS DESIGN FEE ESTIMATE 



Department 


Classification 


Classification j 
Number 


Numoer of 
Hours 


Hourly Rate 
(including 
overhead) 


Extension 


Public Works 


Associate Mechanical Engineer 


5254 


85 


S77 




Public Works 


Senior Mechanical Engineer 


5258 


10 


5103 


S '-°3?J 


Public Works 


Engineering Assoc. 


5346 


36 


S57 


S2 


Public Works 


Senior Clerk 


1446 


16 


S45 




Parkinc & Traffic 


Assoc. Traffic Engineer 


5223 


10 


S60 




Parking & Traffic 


Traffic Engineer 


5230 


37 


S69 


s: - 


Parking & Traffic 


ISenior Traffic Engineer 


5232 


4 


531 


5^^" 


;Fubiic Works 


'Project Manager II 


5504 


85 


S34 




Public Works 


ICivil Engineer 
(Hazardous Soecirlcations) 


52C8 


31 


591 


52.821 


Public Works 


.Associate Civil Engineer 
(Scec Review) 


5206' 


75 


S77 






TOTAL 








S29.56C 


TC 


TAL FOR BOTH LOCATIONS 








$59,12o] 



Source: Department of Public Works 



City and County of San Francisco 




Willie Lewis Brown, Jr., Mayor 
Mark A. Primeau, AIA, Director 




Attachment ll 



(415)558-4021 

FAX (415) 558-4519 

http://www.sfdpw.com 



Department of Public Works 

Project Management Division 

30 Van Ness Avenue, 5* Floor 

San Francisco. CA 94102-6020 

Kathryn How, Assistant City Engineer 



MEMORANDUM 



To: 



Emilie Neumann 
Budget Analyst 



Date: February 23, 2000 



From: Patrick Rivera 

DPW-Project Manager 

Subject: Release of Reserve Revision 

AWSS Repair at 3 rd and Evans 

This is to clarify and revise the Request for Release of Reserve that was submitted to the Board 
of Supervisors on February 11, 2000 by the San Francisco Fire Department (SFFD). The request 
was for design funds to prepare construction documents for the repair of Auxiliary Water Supply 
System (AWSS) leaks that were discovered in January 2000 at two locations: 3 rd and Evans and 
Evans and Selby. The estimate to prepare construction documents for the 3 rd and Evans site is 
S29,560 and for the Evans and Selby site is S29,560. 

It has come to my attention, that repairs have begun at the 3 rd and Evans site without the need for 
construction documents. The repairs were performed on a rush basis by City workers because of 
the importance of restoring AWSS service to that line and that neighborhood and the ability to 
mobilize on short notice. The repairs were performed by SFFD plumbers and San Francisco 
Water Deparatment truck drivers, operating engineers and carpenters. The repair consisted of 
excavating and exposing the 12 inch pipe and replacing loosened rubber pipe gaskets. The labor 
cost to perform the repair was 516,808. Planning and engineering design services were not 
needed at this site because the repairs were simple enough to make in the field. 

In addition to the labor costs are equipment and material costs (i.e. backhoe, dumptruck. crane 
and steel plates), and the cost to repair the roadway (i.e. construct concrete roadbase and asphalt 
concrete). The equipment and material cost estimate for the jepair is $2,734 and the cost 
estimate to repair the roadway is S5.440. 

I would like to revise the request for release of reserve funds for the 3 rd and Evans site only from 
529,560 to S24,982. 



If you have any questions, please call me at 558-4045. 



attachment 

c: Project File 



'IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN SAN FRANCISCO' We are dedicated individuals committed to teamwork, 
customer service and continuous improvement in partnership mth the community 



City and County of San Francisco 




Willie Lewis Brown, Jr., Mayor 
Mark A. Primeau, AIA, Director 



Atta chmen t III , Page ] 

- n 

|v (415)558-40: 

'jn* FAX (415) 558-45 fl 
~^ http://www.sfdpw.co 

Department of Public Wort 

Project Management Divisit 

30 Van Ness Avenue. 5" Flo 

San Francisco. CA 94102-50: 

Kathryn How, Assistant City Engine 



MEMORANDIM 



Date: February 29, 2000 



To: Emilie Neumann 

Budget Analyst 

From: Patrick Rivera 

DPW-Project Manager 

Subject: Clarification for AWSS Repair at 3'" and Evans and Evans and Sdby 

Because there are various departments working on the two sites, the following is an explanation of the 
responsibility of each department for each of the sites: 

3 rd and Evans 

SFWD: provide the operators, truck drivers, carpenters, equipment and materials required to 
excavate the site in order to expose the leak. The cost for this work is S9.288. 

SFFD: provide the plumbers in order to replace the damaged pipe gaskets. The cost for this 
work is SI 0,254. 

DPW: provide the cement finishers, laborers and equipment required to replace the roadway 
section after all pipe repairs are complete. The cost for this work is S3. 440. 

Evans and Selbv: 

DPW: provide the Mechanical Engineers required to prepare construction plans specifications 

and estimates for the repair of the pipe leak. The cost for this work is 526,083. 

DPT: provide the traffic engineers required to prepare the traffic routing plans needed dunne 
construction. The cost for this work is $3,477. 

The standard practice for handling release of reserves and the transfer of funds to the various 
departments and agencies is that DPW issues work orders. This way there is one point of contact for 
handling the transaction and most importantly tracking the fundsr- 

If you have any questions, please call me at 558-4045 

attachment 

c: Project File 



•IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN SAN FRANCISCO' We are dedicated mcividuais committed to teamwork 
customer service and continuous improvement in partnership with the community 



3rd and Evans AWSS Pipe Repair 



Attachment III 
Page 1 of 3 



Equipment and Material Cost Estimate for AWSS Repair 



Eackhoe 
Dump Truck 
Scorn Truck 
Steel Plate 
Gaskets 



Cty 
24 
24 
24 



Unit 




Rate 




Extension 


hours 


S 


30.C0 


S 


720.00 


hours 


S 


36.C0 


s 


864.00 


hours 


S 


25.00 


s 


600.00 


days 


s 


100.00 


s 


5C0.CO 


9acn 


s 


25.C0 


s 


50.C0 



2.734.00 



Cost Estimate to Repair Roadway 



Eackfill 

Aspnart Concrete 
Concrete Ease 
Laccr 



Qty 

36 

2 
144 

1 



Unit 

tons 

tons 

si 

lump sum 



Rate 
10 
100 
20 

2CC0 



Extension 
S 360.00 

5 200.C0 

5 2.880.CO 

S 2.000.00 

S 5.440.C0 



8.174.00 



Source: Department of Public Works 



ecutcment estimate 



Attachment II] 
Page 3 ot j 



COSTS DO NOT INCLUDE MATERIALS, PARTS OR PAVING. THESE COSTS ARE FOR LABOR ONLY 
(Fire Department and Water Department) 



SAN FRANCISCO FIRE DEPARTMENT WORK SHEET 
12" high-pressure main break 



5:00PM Start Time 



EACH 


RATE 


CLASSIFICATION 


DATE 


LOCATION 


HOURS WORKED 


TOTAL 




overtime 












1 


S 69.00 


7250 Utility Plumber Sud. 


2/3/00 


EVANS & 3RD ST 


6 


S 


414.1 


1 


S 62.00 


7388 Utility Plumber 


2/3/00 


EVANS & 3RD ST 


6 


I 


372. 


1 


S 38.00 


7514 General Laborer 


2/3/00 


EVANS & 3RD ST 


6 


s 


228. 












TOTALS 


3 


1.014. 


5:00PM Start Time 


EACH 


RATE 


CLASSIFICATION 


DATE 


LOCATION 


HOURS WORKED 


TOTAL 


1 


S 69.00 


7250 Utility Plumber Sud 


2/4/00 


EVANS & 3RD ST 


6 


S 


414. 


2 


$ 62.00 


7388 Utility Plumber 


2/4/00 


EVANS & 3RD ST 


6 


5 


744. 


1 


S 38.00 


7514 General Laborer 


2/4/00 


EVANS & 3RD ST 


6 


S 


228. 












TOTALS 


S 


1,386.i 


5:00PM Start Time 


EACH 


RATE 


CLASSIFICATION 


DATE 


LOCATION 


HOURS WORKED 


TOTAL1 


1 


S 69.00 


7250 Utility Plumber Suo. 


2/6/00 


EVANS & 3RD ST 


14 


S 


966 


2 


S 62.00 


7388 Utility Plumber 


2/6/00 


EVANS & 3RD ST 


14 


3 


1 736.l1 


1 


S 38.00 


7514 General Laborer 


2/6,00 


EVANS & 3RD ST. 


14 


S 


532. 


1 


S 49.00 


7355 Truck Driver SFWD 


2/6/00 


EVANS & 3RD ST 


14 


I 


556 


1 


S 58.00 


7328 Oper. Eng. SFWD 


2/6/00 


EVANS & 3RD ST 


14 


S 


P ' 2 ) 1 


1 


S 54.00 


7344 Carpenter SFWD 


2/6/00 


EVANS & 3RD ST. 


14 


5 


"56 












TOTALS 


5 


5.488): 




5:00PM Start Time 












EACH 


RATE 


CLASSIFICATION 


DATE 


LOCATION 


HOURS WORKED 




1 


S 69.00 


7250 Utility Plumber Sud. 


2/7/CO 


EVANS & 3RD ST. 


6 


S 


4*4 


2 


S 62.00 


7388 Utility Plumber 


2/7/00 


EVANS & 3RD ST 


6 


5 


-44 


1 


S 38.00 


7514 General Laborer 


2/7,00 


EVANS & 3RD ST. 


6 


5 


2281 


1 


S 49.00 


7355 Truck Driver SFWD 


2/7,00 


EVANS & 3RD ST. 


6 


S 


294j 


1 


S 58.00 


7328 Oper. Eng. SFWD 


2.7/00 


EVANS & 3RD ST 


6 


S 348< 


2 


S 54.00 


7344 Carpenter SFWD 


2/7/00 


EVANS & 3RD ST. 


6 


S 


48 












TOTALS 


s 


2.6760 




5:00PM Start Time 












EACH 


RATE 


CLASSIFICATION 


DATE 


LOCATION 


HOURS WORKED 




1 


S 69.00 


7250 Utility Plumber Sud. 


21 12/00 


EVANS & 3RD ST 


14 


s 


■ 


2 


S 62.00 


7388 Utility Plumber 


2' 12/00 


EVANS & 3RD ST 


14 


5 


■ 73( 


1 I S 38.00 


7514 General Laborer 


2/12/00 


EVANS & 3RD ST 


14 


S 


52: : 


1 


S 49.00 


7355 Truck Driver SFWD 


2/12/00 


EVANS & 3RD ST 


14 


. ; 


55- 


1 


5 58.00 


7328 Ooer. Eng. SFWD 


2.12 00 


EVANS & 3RD ST. 


14 


- c 


--■. 


2 


S 54.00 


7344 Camenter SFWD 


2/12/00 


EVANS & 3RD ST. 


14 


s 


■ 5V, 












TOTALS 


s 


6.24 »J 












TOTAL COSTS 


5 


16.8<K» 



Source: Fire Department and Department of Public Works 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

March 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Items 9 and 10 - Files 99-1413 and 99-1412 

Note: These items were continued at the Finance and Labor Committee 

Meeting of October 13, 1999, and File 99-1412 has been subsequently 
amended. 

The Budget Analyst has been informed that a second Amendment of 
the Whole is being prepared for Item 10, File 99-1412. This report has 
been prepared based on information provided by the Residential Rent 
Stabilization and Arbitration Board regarding this second proposed 
Amendment of the Whole. 



Department: 



Item: 



Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board 
(RNT) 

File 99-1412 

Ordinance requiring the Executive Director of the 
Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board, or 
his or her designee, to obtain a neutral, comprehensive, 
fact-based, socio-economic study of housing in San 
Francisco, to be completed within one year; and providing 
that proposed substantive amendments to the Residential 
Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance and various 
housing ordinances must be supported by findings of fact. 

File 99-1413 

Ordinance appropriating $175,000 from the General Fund 
Reserve to the Residential Rent Stabilization and 
Arbitration Board to fund a fact-based socio-economic 
study of housing in San Francisco, for Fiscal Year 1999- 
2000. 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



$175,000 

General Fund Reserve 

File 99-1412 

This proposed ordinance would authorize the RNT to 
obtain a comprehensive, fact-based, socio-economic study 
of San Francisco housing. The ordinance proposes that 
the study be completed and reported in writing within one 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

March 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

year and be conducted by neutral researchers. The 
ordinance would require the Executive Director of the 
RNT to hold a public hearing in order to permit interested 
members of the public and relevant City departments to 
provide their input on the scope of the study. 

The proposed ordinance would also require that any 
substantive amendments to the Residential Rent 
Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance (Rent Ordinance) 
and various housing ordinances must be supported by 
findings of fact. 

File 99-1413 

This ordinance would appropriate $175,000 from the 
General Fund Reserve to fund a professional services 
contract to conduct the above-noted study. 

Budget: ~>,000 for a professional services contract. 

Comments: 1. The purpose of the study into San Francisco housing 

proposed under File 99-1412 is to (a) better inform the 
Board of Supervisors regarding future changes to the 
Rent Ordinance and various housing ordinances, and (b) 
assist the City and its leaders in the formulation of 
housing policies. 

2. The proposed ordinance under File 99-1413 would 
appropriate $175,000 for a fact-based socio-economic 
study. According to Mr. Joe Grubb of the RNT. the 
requested $175,000 would be expended on a professional 
services contract which would be awarded through a 
Request for Proposal (RFP) process, taking into account 
both vendor qualifications and costs. Mr. Grubb advises 
that the RNT would both advertise the RFP in the 
broadest possible fashion and target potential consultants 
to ensure an ample pool of qualified vendors. Mr. Grubb 
estimates that vendors would be given at least two to 
three weeks to respond from the date the RFP is posted. 
Mr. Grubb advises that the timing of this posting would 
depend on when the ordinance was approved. 

3. As of the writing of this report. Mr. Grubb states that 
he is unable to estimate the number of hours or the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

54 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

March 8, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Recommendations: 



hourly rates of the subject professional services contract. 
Mr. Grubb states that the number of hours and hourly 
rates would depend on (a) the scope of the project which 
would be determined in part by the proposed public 
hearing, and (b) the preferred vendor's bid. 

4. Pending submission to the Board of Supervisors of (a) 
the selected vendor, (b) the estimated number of hours, 
and (c) the hourly rates of the selected vendor, the 
requested funds of $175,000 under File 99-1413 should be 
placed on reserve. 

1. In accordance with Comment No. 4 above, amend the 
proposed ordinance to reserve $175,000 pending selection 
of the vendor, and submission of the selected vendor's 
estimated hours and hourly rates to the Board of 
Supervisors (File 99-1413). 

2. Approval of the proposed ordinance (File 99-1412) and 
the proposed ordinance as amended (File 99-1413), is a 
policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



cc: Supervisor Yee 

Supervisor Bierman 
President Ammiano 
Supervisor Becerril 
Supervisor Brown 
Supervisor Katz 
Supervisor Kaufman 
Supervisor Leno 
Supervisor Newsom 
Supervisor Teng 
Supervisor Yaki 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Legislative Analyst 
Matthew Hymel 
Stephen Kawa 
Ted Lakey 




./_ Harvey M. Rose 



/{T*- 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 




City and County of£an Francisco 

Meeting Minutes 
^Finance and Labor Committee 

Members: Supervisors I. eland Yee, Sue Bierman, Tom Ammiano 
Clerk: Mary Red 



City Hall 

1 Dr. Carlton B. 

Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, CA 

94102^689 



Wednesday, March 15, 2000 



10:00 AM 
Regular Meeting 



City Hall, Room 263 



Members Present: Leland Y. Yee, Tom Ammiano. 
Members Absent: Sue Bierman. 



Meeting Convened 

The meeting convened at 10:07 a.m. 

REGULAR AGENDA 



DOCUMENTS DEPT 

MAR l / 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



000268 [Approving the concession lease of Host International. Inc. for a specialty store and newsstand located at 
the North Terminal Hub of the Airport, at a minimum annual rent for the first year of $2, 550,000) 

Resolution approving the North Terminal Hub Principal Retail Concession lease between Host International, 

Inc. and the City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through its Airport Commission. (Airport 

Commission) 

2/8/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

3/1/00, CONTINUED. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Ken Bruce, Budget Analyst's Office; Jon Ballesteros, Airport Commission; 

Supervisor Ammiano; Ted Lakey, Deputy City Attorney. Continued to March 8, 2000. 

3/8/00, CONTINUED Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Jon Ballesteros, Airport Commission; Supervisor 

Yee; Supervisor Ammiano; Carl Cramer. Living Wage Coalition. Continued to March 15, 2000. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst: Jon Ballesteros, Airport Commission: 
Supervisor Ammiano. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



000289 [Release of Funds, Fire Department] 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds. Fire Department,! 1986 Fire Protection Bond interest earnings. 

File 101-95-61: Ordinance No. 127-96 ), in the amount of $59,120 to fund the emergency repairs of the City's 

Auxiliary Water System (AWSS) facilities located at Third/Evans Streets, and Evans/Selby Streets. (Fire 

Department) 

2/14/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

3/8/00, CONTINUED. Heard in Committee Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst, Superv isor Yee Continued to March 15, 2 

department representative present 

Heard m Committee Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst, Patrick Rivera. Department of Public Works, 
Supervisor Yee. Amended to only release $54,542 
APPROVED AND FILED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 
Absent: 1 - Bierman 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 5:44 P\f on 316.00 



Finance and Labor Committei 



Meeting Minnie 



March 15, 2000 



000311 1 1 999-2000 Budget Status Report| 
Supervisor Yee 

Hearing to consider the 1999-2000 Budget Status Report issued by the Controller 
2 14 ik), Kiel rVED AND ASSIGNI Dtol inance and Labor Committee 

Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst, Ed Harrington, Controller, Supervisor 
Ammiano, Erin McGrath, Mayor's Office of Finance, Supervisor Yee TedLakey, Deputy City Attorney, Wan 
Norton, S F for Tax Justice. Robert Layman 
FILED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



000412 | Three Year Budget Projection Joint Report | 
Supervisor Yee 

Hearing to consider the Three Ycai Budget Projection joint report which has been prepared by the Board of 
Supervisors' Budget Analyst, the Controller, and the Mayor's budget director 

3/6/00. KICI l\ I I) \\l) ASSli .SI II to Finance and I abor Committee Sponsor requeMJ this matter be considered at the March 15. 
2000 meeting 

Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst, Ed Harrington, Controller, Supervisor 
Ammiano. Erin McGrath. Mayor's Office of Finance, Supervisor Yee TedLakey, Deputy Cm At 

Norton, S.F.for Tax Justice. Robert Layman 
FILED by the following sole: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



000348 [Reserved Funds. Department of Human Services] 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds, Department of Human Services, (Fiscal Year 
1999-2000 Budget), in the amount of S200.000 to fund the CalWORKS College Scholarship program. 
I Human Services Department) 

: 24 00, RECEIVI D and ASSIGNED to Finance and I abor C ommitt ee. 

Heard in Committee Speakers Han e\ Rose. Budget Analyst. Will Lightboume. Executive Dm 
Department of Human Sen ices Amended to only release $140,000 
APPROVED VND FILED by the following \ote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



000183 [Limitation Period far Filing Ta\ Claim] 

Ordinance amending Article 6 of Part III of the San Francisco Municipal Code by amending Section 6.15-1 to 
providing that any claim for refund of taxes paid be filed within six months from the time the return was filed 
or the tax was paid. \\ hichevet period expires later, with the exception that in no event shall such period expire 
prior to the shortest period allowable for filing tax refund claims under Title 1. Division 3.6. Part 3. Section 
91 1.2 of the California Government Code. (City Attorney) 

1 28/00, ASSIGNED UNDER 30 DA\ Kl I K to Finance and labor Committee, ( :"00. 

2 15 00. CLERICAL CORRECTION Corrected to insert "Section 6 15-1" in title only 

Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; TedLakey, Deputy City Attorney, Supervisor 

Yee 

RECOMMENDED b\ the following \ote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



City and County of San Francisco 



Primed at 5:4 5 PV on 3 1&00 



Finance and Labor Committee Meeting Minutes March 15, 2000 



SPECIAL ORDER - 11:00 A.M. 



000309 [Bond Initiative] 
Supervisor Leno 

Hearing to discuss the possibility of a bond initiative for the November 2000 ballot to address the 
infrastructural needs of San Francisco General Hospital and community clinics and the placement of City 
health clinics in San Francisco's public schools. 
2/14/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Supervisor Yee; Supeivisor Ammiano; Supervisor Leno; Harvey Rose, 
Budget Analyst; Ed Harrington. Controller; Jim Chappell, Director, SPUR; Dr. Mitchell Katz, Director of 
Health; Monique Zmuda. Department of Public Health; Monique Mover. Mayor's Office of Public Finance; 
Dr. Tom Coates. Director, UCSF AIDS Research Institute; Dr. Paul Volberding, Director. UCSF Positive 
Health Program; Roma Guy, President, Health Commission; Ron Hill, Health Commissioner; Trish Bascom, 
Supervisor, SFUSD School Health Program; Maureen McCarthy. Health Center; Balboa High School; 
Nathan Nayman, Regional Vice President, Hospital Council; Dan Martin, SEIU Local 250; Fred Hobson. 
Alice B. Toklas Club; Gilbert Criswell. Harvey Milk Democratic Club; Sonya Hotchkiss; M. P. R. Howard. 
Tom Waddell Community Health Center; Otto Duffy. Community! Health Network; Denise D'Anne, Emergencv 
Coalition to Save Public Health; Giuliana Micanese; Ruth Vaughn. Potrero Hill Health Clinic; Richard 
Heasley. Conard House; Helynna Brooke. Executive Director, Mental Health Board; Maty Kate Connor. 
CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



ADJOURNMENT 

The meeting adjourned at 1:27 p.m. 



City and Count}' of San Francisco 3 Printed at f: 45 P\1 on 1 I MM 



CITY AND COUNTY 




Susan Horn 

Government Documents Section 

Main Library 



OF SAN FRANCISCO 



^OARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street. Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 
FAX (415) 252-0461 



March 9, 2000 
TO: , Finance and Labor Committee 

FROM: .Budget Analyst 
SUBJECT: March 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 1 - File 00-0268 



DOCUMENTS DEPT 
MAR 1 4 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Note: This item was continued by the Finance and Labor Committee at its meeting 
of March 8, 2000. 



Department: 
Item: 



Location: 
Purpose of Lease: 

Lessor: 



Airport 

Resolution approving the North Terminal Hub 
Principal Retail Concession lease between Host 
International, Inc. and the City and County of San 
Francisco, acting by and through its Airport 
Commission. 

North Terminal Hub of the Airport 

Concession space for a specialty store and a 
newsstand (See Description Section below) 

City and County of San Francisco through the 
Airport Commission 



Lessee: 



Host International 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

No. ofSq. Ft. and 

Monthly Rental Revenues 

Payable by 

Host International 

to the Airport: A total of 4,984 square feel at two locations in the 

Airport's North Terminal Hub. consisting of 3,784 
square l""t for a specialty store and 1.200 square feet 
for a newsstand. The total rental revenues to be paid 
by Host International to the Airport based on the 
Minimum Annual Guarantee would be 
approximately $42 50 per square foot per month, or 
$212,500 per month ($2,550,000 annually). 

Annual Rental Revenues 

Payable by 

Host International 

to the Airport: The proposed lease would require Host International 

to pay the Airport th<> greater of a Minimum Annual 
Guarantee (MAG) of >_ '-50,000 for each year of the 
the year Ira-.- term, or a percentage of gross 
dized by Host International. According 
to the lease, the annual percentage of gross reve: 
is 12", for the fir '00. 14% between $500,000 

and $1,000,000. and 16% for all gross revenues in 
excess of $1,000,000. The terms of the proposed lease 
are similar to the terms of concession leases 
previously approved by the Board of Supervisors for 
the Airport. The subject lease also provides for 
annual increases in the Minimum Annual Guarantee 
based on increases in the U.S. Department of Labor 
Department Store Inventory Price Index-Soft Goods. 1 

Term of Lease: The proposed lease is scheduled to commence in 

December of 2000. upon completion of the required 
renovation work by Host International. The lease 
would be for a five-year period, terminating in 
December of 2005. 



1 According to Ms. Gigi Ricasa of the Airport, soft goods are defined as retail goods such a 
toy?, sunglasses, and books. The Airport has determined that this price index is the most 
appropriate one to applv to leases for Airport concessions. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 15. 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Right of Renewal: 



The five-year lease term begins on the Rent 
Commencement Date, defined in the lease as the 
first day both spaces covered by the subject lease are 
fully operational. According to Ms. Gigi Ricasa of the 
.Airport, the specialty store is expected to be 
operational by June 10. 2000. However, the 
newsstand is not expected to be operational until 
December of 2000 due to the North Terminal/Thumb 
Expansion. Ms Ricasa advises that prior to 
completion of the newsstand and the Rent 
Commencement Date, expected in December of 2000, 
Host International will pay to the Airport a prorated 
rent based on the 3,^84 square feet for the operating 
specialty store (the total 4.984 square feet covered by 
the subject lease less the 1,200 square feet for the 
newsstand). 



None 



Utilities and Janitor 

Provided by Lessor: The Lessee will pay for the costs of all utilities and 
janitorial services. 



Description: 



The proposed resolution would approve a concession 
lease for Host International to operate one specialty 
store and one newsstand in the North Terminal Hub 
of the Airport. Under the terms of the subject lease, 
Host International has identified the following five 
retail "concepts" to be sold in the specialty store: (1) 
Souvenir/Gift Items; (2) High-End Retail; (3) Bay 
Area-Northern California Specialty Items; (4) 
Museum-Related Products; and (5) Aviation-Related 
Products. 

The proposed lease would require Host International 
to sell the following at the newsstand: local, daily 
and out-of-town newspapers: 200 separately 
displayed periodicals and magazines; 300 separately 
displayed hardback and paperback books, plus 
candy, tobacco, health aids, and souvenir items. 

Host International would directly operate the first 3 
of the 5 concepts listed above for the specialty store 
and all of the newsstand, totaling 3,488 square feet. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

3 



Memo to Finance and Labor Commii 

March 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



or 70 percent of the total l 984 square feet covered 
by the Bubjecl International would 

-uhlease operation of the two remaining concepts in 
the specialty store to two Disadvantaged Business 
Enterprises (DBEs): 1-5 Concessions, LLC and Sun 
Shade Holding Corporation. The total 1,496 squ 
feet sub-leased by the DBE companies would be 
approximately 30 percenl of the total 4.984 square 
I by the lease. 

The following table identifies the two retail spaces 
covered' by the subject Lease, the five con the 

specialty the types of goods sold by each 

business, and the square footage occupied by each 
busini 



< onci'ssimi 


Operator 


Concept 


Sq. Feet 


Specialty Store 


Host 


Souvenir Gift Items 


2.288 


Hiuh-End Retail 


Bj\ Axel & Northern 
California Items 


1-5 Concessions 1 Aviation Products 


748 


Sun Shade Museum Products 


748 


Total Sq. Ft for Specialty Store 


3.784 


Newsstand 


Host Newsstand 


1.200 




Total Square Feet for Lease 


A .-a 



Tenant 

Improvements: 



Host International would be required to invest a 
minimum of $150 per square foot to renovate the 
subject lease space, or a total of $747,600 for the 
1,984 square feet covered by the subject lease. 

Under the terms of the proposed lease. Host 
International would have the option to request 
Airport approval for two temporary facilities to sell 
merchandise during such renovations, estimated to 
take 90 days. During such time. Host would pay the 
Airport a percentage rent of 20 percent of gross 
revenues. In addition. Ms. Ricasa states that the 
Airport plans to give Host International permission 
to operate a temporary facility to sell newsstand 
merchandise during the period that the North 
Terminal Hub/Thumb Expansion delays the turnover 
of space to Host International. Host International 
will pay to the Airport 20 percent of gross revenues 
earned from the temporary newsstand facility. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

4 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Comment: According to Ms. Ricasa. on September 21, 1999 the 

Airport issued Invitations to Bid to 60 firms for the 
subject concession lease, as stated in the Attachment 
to this report, provided by the Airport. Subsequently, 
on December 21, 1999, the Airport Commission 
adopted a resolution awarding the lease to Host 
International, the highest responsive and qualified 
bidder. The Attachment also contains a list of all 
firms that submitted bids for this concession and 
their Minimum Annual Guarantees. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

5 



C3MMIS1IO 




San rrancsc: interr.aaonai Airrcr: 



- 



VIA FACSiMll =. f415'i 252-0415 

DATE: Pessary 23, 2000 

TO: Emiiy Newman 

Budge: Analyst Office 



FROM: Gici Ricass 



& 



/ 



Airpon Concession Development and Management 
! Subject North Terminal Hub Principal Retail Concession Lea - ease"] 



This Lease was deveicced based onl ry with passenger- needs ar 

desires, current marketing and retail t - mographie 
the economy, the existing concessioi r g area and prcposa:: - 

from the community or retail industry. 

Standard Marketing Procure fcr an v Concession Ooccr 

After Airport Commission approves staff to conduct a pre-l si conference, 

Concession Development and Manageme ' star mails a letl 

to a maiiing list that has been generated by COM that relates to the ccnc- 

concession opportunity. Tne interested parties who respc 

are oiaced or, a more specified mail list. ~ne specified mail list receives cccies of 

pre-bics and bid documents, For this Lease, the car; Request for L , 

Prcocsai and Bid fRFQ/P and Bid"] Documents and me i 

Documents were maiied to spproxirne eople who responde: tter of 

interest Tnere were 32 attendees s i rmational conference held r 

August 1999. 

Ccmceiriivz = rocass 

The comDetitive orocess used for this _ease was a crcccsa: and at : process. 

Interested caries were each recc red to J lit a proposa . which rs 

tc five retail concerns in tne o;cce' scace arc a newsstand for the sma;ie: s; ; 

other main recuirsment was that the successful proposer sublease : 
total scuare footage tc Disadvantaged Business Enterprise - 'the propose 
was deemed acceotabie, the orocose" ao v . a~ces tc the second stage which is the 
oic stage. The Proposer's bid form is opened at a ouciic meeting snd a: this stage, 
whoever submits me hichest bid amount is announced the apparent successi 
bidder. Tn:s Bidder tnen submits additional paperwork regarding riumsr Rights 
Commission Requirement tc ensure mat this sidcer meets these requirements 



Memo !o rmlly Newman 
"esr.-sry 23. 2CQC 
^58 2 



esult of RFQ/Pf and Sid 



There were two companies who submitted proposals: O Host International, Inc. and © 
Pacific Gateway Concessions, LLC. Both proposals were deemed acceptable, 
therefore, both Proocsers' bid forms were opened, and the result was: 

Bidder Bid Amount 



Host International, Inc. S2, 550, 000 

Pacific Gateway Concessions, LLC S1 ,408,999.99 

The Airport Commission formally awarded the Lease to Host International, Inc. on 
December 21, 1999. 

Highest Bidder and its Proposed Subtenant 

Host proposed four concepts in the bigger space, and they are: O Souvenir 
merchandise, © Museum items, © Aviation items © California regional packaged food 
products, and © High end retail. Host will sublease two of the concepts to the 
following DBEs: I-5 Concessions, LLC and Sun Shade Holding Corporation. The rent 
for the DBE is as follows: Tenant shall charge the DBE Subtenant, as rent, no more 
than the same tiered rent percentage to the DBEs, which is as follows: 

" 12% of Gross Revenues from the subleased premises achieved up to and 

including $500,000; plus 
• 14% of Gross Revenues from the subleased premises achieved from S500, 000.2' 

up to and including $1,000,000; plus 
■ 15% of Gross Revenues from the subleased premises over $1 ,000,000. 

Please do not hesitate to contact me at (650) 794-4505 if you have further questions. 
Thank you for your assistance in obtaining Board of Supervisors' approval on this 

Lease. 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 2 - File 00-0289 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance and Labor Committee at its meeting 
of March 8, 2000. 



Department: 



Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Budget: 



Fire Department 
Department of Public Works 
Department of Parking and Traffic 
Water Department 

Hearing to consider the release of reserved funds in 
the amount of $59,120 to fund emergency repairs of 
the Auxiliary Water Supply System (AWSS) facilities 
located at the intersections of Third and Evans 
Streets and Evans and Selby Streets. 

$59,120 

Fire Protection Systems Improvement General 
Obligation (GO) Bonds, previously appropriated and 
placed on reserve by the Board of Supervisors 

The summary budget for the subject reserved funds is 
as follows: 



Third Street and Evans Street 




Department of Public Works Staff - 


Planning and Design 


$26,083 


Department of Parking & Traffic Staff - 




Traffic Routing Plans 


3,477 


Third/Evans Subtotal 


S29.560 


Evans Street and Selbv Street 




Department of Public Works Staff - 




Planning and Design 


$26,083 


Department of Parking & Traffic Staff - 




Traffic Routing Plans 

Evans/Selby Subtotal 

Total Project Budget 


3.477 


$29,560 


S.-.9.120 



Attachment I to this report, provided by the 
Department of Public Works (DPW), contains details 
to support the summary budget above. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Description: 



Comments: 



The subjecl reserved funds would be used for the 
planning and design work needed for the repair of two 
ruptured Auxiliary Water Supply System (AV. 
pipes at the intersections of Third Street/Evans Street 
and Evans Street/Selby Street. The AWSS is a system 
of re pipelines, pump Btations, and 

fireboats, comprising the source of water supply for 
fire protection in emergency situation - 

The City sold a total of $46.2 million in I 
Protection Systems Improvement General Obligation 
Bonds ($31 million in 1987 and $15.2 million in 199] I 
to finance improvements to the City's Auxiliary Water 
Supply System. In March of 1996. the Board of 
Supervisors approved a supplemental appropriation 
ordinanci - ;,907.900 (Rle 101-95-61) from 

accrued interest from the Fire Protection Systems 
Improvement Bonds for four categories of capital 
improvement projects: ill repair and improvement of 
the Fin boat Phoenix. (2) implementation of motorized 
AWSS control valves, (3) repairs to the AWSS w 
storage tank, and (4) emergency repairs of AWSS 
facilities. The subject requested release of reserved 
funds would come from category (4) emergency 
repairs of AWSS facilities. 

1. According to Mr. Patrick Rivera of the Department 
of Public Works, two ruptured 12-inch diameter pipes 
discovered in the Auxiliary Water Supply 
System (AWSS) pipelines, at the intersections of 
Evans and Selby Streets and Third and Evans Streets 
on January 2, 2000 and February 2. 2000 
respectively. Mr. Rivera advises that the Fire 
Department conducted initial investigations after 
receiving reports of water leaks. After the source of 
each leak was located, the main valves on both ends 
of the ruptured pipes were closed, shutting off the 
high-pressure water supply to Bayview Hunters 
Point. According to Mr. Bill Gunn of the Fire 
Department, the disabled ruptured pipes significantly 
hamper fire protection for Bayview Hunters Point 
since the two pipes are the only direct water sources 
for fire emergencies in the district. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



2. According to Mr. Rivera, during the time since 
DPW and the Fire Department originally submitted 
the subject request for a release of reserved funds, 
repairs have already begun on the ruptured pipe at 
Third and Evans Streets. Such repairs will cost an 
estimated total of $24,982. This amount of $24,982 to 
repair the leak is $4,578 less than the original request 
in the subject proposal of $29,560 for the design and 
planning necessary to repair the ruptured pipe. 
According to Mr. Rivera, as stated in Attachment II, 
after further investigation. DPW and the Fire 
Department learned that the leak at Third and Evans 
Streets was less serious than they had first 
anticipated and that they could repair the leak at a 
lower cost, without going through the design and 
planning process. According to Mr. Rivera, DPW and 
the Fire Department believed it was important to 
begin the emergency repairs as soon as possible since 
Bayview Hunters Point depends on the two ruptured 
AWSS pipes for fire protection. 

A summary budget for the repairs at Third and Evans 
Streets is as follows: 



Repairs: Third and Evans Streets 




Labor 


Fire Department 


S10,254 


Water Department 


6.554 


DPW - Bureau of Street & Sewer Repair 


2.000 


Labor Total: 


$18,808 


Equipment 


3,490 


Materials 


2.684 


TOTAL BUDGET COSTS: 


$24,982 



Attachment III, provided by DPW, contains details in 
support the summary budget shown above. According 
to Mr. Rivera, it is standard procedure for DPW to use 
part of the subject requested reserved funds in 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



i n 



Memo to Finance and Labor Commin 

March 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



reimburse the Fire Department, the Water 
Department and the Department of Parking and 
Traffic for i heir work, as stated in Attachment III. 

3. The proposed release of reserved funds should be 
amended to account for the repairs that have all 
begun at Third and Evans Streets, as described in 
Comment No. 2 above. The original proposed release 
of reserved funds of $29,560 for design and planning 
for repairs of the AW'SS system at Third and Evan- 
Streets, should be reduced by $4,578 to the current 
cost estimate of to repair the leak. The 

amended total subjeci request would thus Le $54 5 12 
L578 les> than the original request of $59,120, 
for: (1) repair.- at Third and Evans Strei 
and (2) design and planning for repairs at Evans and 
Selby Stn 560). 

1 According to Mr. Rivera, and as detailed in 
Attachment I provided by DPW. the subject funds 
totaling $29,560 allocated for repairing the remaining 

ruptured pipe at Evans and Selby Streets would be 
expended for: (a) DPW staff to prepare plans and 

Bcations for the repair of the 12-inch diam 
pipe ($26,083); and (b) Department of Parking and 
Traffic (DPT) to prepare traffic routing plans at the 
location ($3,477). Also included in the cost for both 
DPW and DPT is coordination with utility companies 
and the DPW Bureau of Streets and Mapping for 
preparation of construction permits. 

5. According to Mr. Rivera, the design and planning 
for repair work on the remaining ruptured pipe at 
Evans and Selby Streets would begin as soon as the 
Board approves the subject request for release of 
reserved funds. DPW intends to request a second 
release of reserved bond funds for the actual 
construction work to repair the ruptured pipe. The 
construction to repair the leak would begin 
approximately in May of 2000. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

11 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed release of reserved funds to 
reduce the requested amount by $4,578 from $59,120 
to $54,542 as stated in Comment No. 3 above. 

2. Approved the proposed release of reserved funds as 
amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attaches - 



Department of Public Works 
Engineering Design Services 

EVANS AND SELBY DESIGN FEE ESTIMATE 



Deoanment 


Classification 


Classification 
Number 


Numoer of 

Hours 


| Hourly Rate 

(including 
i overhead) 


Extension 


Public Works 


Associate Mechanical Engineer 


5254 


85 


S77 


S5.545 


Public Works 


Senior Mecnanical Engineer 


5258 


10 


S103 


SI. 030 


Public Works 


Engineenng Assoc. 


5346 


36 


S57 


S2.C52 


iPublic Works 


Senior Clerk 


1446 


16 


$45 


S720 


Parking & Traffic 


Assoc. Traffic Enameer 


5228 


10 


S60 


S600 


iParking & Traffic 


Traffic Engineer 


5230 


37 


S69 


S2.553 


Parking & Traffic 


Senior Traffic Engineer 


5232 


4 


S81 


S324 


Public Works 


Project Manager II 


5504 


85 


S84 


S7.140 


: Public Works 


Civil Engineer 
(Hazardous Soecmcations! 


5208 


31 


S91 


S2 


Puoiic Works 


Associate Civil Engineer 
(Soec Review) 


5206 


75 


S77 


S5.775 I 





TOTAL 








$29,560 j^ 


3RD AND EVANS DESIGN FEE ESTIMATE 










Department 


Classification 


Classification I 
Number 


Number of 
Hours 


I Hourly Rate 
(including 
i overhead) 


Extension 


Public Works 


Associate Mechanical Enameer i 


5254 


85 


S77 


So. 545 


PuDlic Works 


ISenior Mechanical Engineer 


5258 


10 


S103 


Si. 030 


Public Works 


lEngineering Assoc. 


5346 


36 


S57 


S2.052 


Public Works 


Senior Clerk 


1446 


16 


S45 


S720 


Parking & Traffic 


Assoc. Traffic Enameer 


5228 


10 


S60 


S500 


Parking & Traffic 


Traffic Encmeer 


5230 


37 


S69 


S2.553 


IParking & Traffic 


iSenior Traffic Engineer 


5232 


4 


S81 


S324 


iPublic Works 


IProject Manager II 


5504 


85 


S84 


S7.140 


Public Works 


Civil Engineer 

I (Hazardous SDecifications) 


5208 


31 


S91 


S2.821 


Public Works 


Associate Civil Engmee r 
(Soec Review! 


5206" 


75 


S77 


S5.775 




TOTAL 








S29.560 




TOTAL FOR BOTH LOCATIONS 








S59.120 



Source: Department of Public Works 



13 



City and County of San Francisco 




Willie Lewis Brown, Jr., Mayor 
Mark A. Primeau, AIA, Director 




Attachment II 



(415)558-4021 

FAX (415) 558-4519 

http://www.sfdpw.com 



Department of Public Works 

Project Management Division 

30 Van Ness Avenue, 5* Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94102-6020 

Kathryn How, Assistant City Engineer 



MEMORANDUM 



To: 



Emilie Neumann 
Budget Analyst 



Date: February 23, 2000 



From: Patrick Rivera 

DPW-Project Manager 

Subject: Release of Reserve Revision 

AWSS Repair at 3 rd and Evans 

This is to clarify and revise the Request for Release of Reserve that was submitted to the Board 
of Supervisors on February 1 1, 2000 by the San Francisco Fire Department (SFFD). The request 
was for design funds to prepare construction documents for the repair of Auxiliary Water Supply 
System (AWSS) leaks that were discovered in January 2000 at two locations: 3 rd and Evans and 
Evans and Selby. The estimate to prepare construction documents for the 3 rd and Evans site is 
S29,560 and for the Evans and Selby site is S29.560. 

It has come to my attention, that repairs have begun at the 3 rd and Evans site without the need for 
construction documents. The repairs were performed on a rush basis by City workers because of 
the importance of restoring AWSS service to that line and that neighborhood and the ability to 
mobilize on short notice. The repairs were performed by SFFD plumbers and San Francisco 
Water Deparatment truck drivers, operating engineers and carpenters. The repair consisted of 
excavating and exposing the 12 inch pipe and replacing loosened rubber pipe gaskets. The labor 
cost to perform the repair was SI 6,808. Planning and engineering design services were not 
needed at this site because the repairs were simple enough to make in the field. 

In addition to the labor costs are equipment and material costs (i.e. backhoe. dumptruck, crane 
and steel plates), and the cost to repair the roadway (i.e. construct concrete roadbase and asphalt 
concrete). The equipment and material cost estimate for the jepair is S2.734 and the cost 
estimate to repair the roadway is S5.440. 

I would like to revise the request for release of reserve funds for the 3 rd and Evans site only from 
S29.560 to S24,982. 

If you have any questions, please call me at 558-4045. 

attachment 

c: Project File 



"IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN SAN FRANCISCO" We are dedicated individuals committed to teamwork, 
customer service and continuous improvement in partnership with the community 



City and County of San Francisco 




Willie Lewis Brown, Jr., Mayor 
Mark A. Primeau, AIA, Director 



Attachment III, Page 1 of 

- r* 

\ -I) 558-402-1 

'jn* FAX(415)558-45lJ 
*» http://www.sfdpw.conl 

Department of Public Work; 

Project Management Divisioi 

30 Van Ness Avenue. 5 

San Francisco. CA 94102-6021 

Kathryn How, Assistant City Enginee 



Ml MORANDl'M 



To: 



Emilie Neumann 
Budeet Analvst 



Date: Februarv 29. 2000 



From: Patrick Rivera 

DPW-Project Manager 

Subject: Clarification for AWSS Repair at s" and Evans and Evans and Selhy 

Because there are various departments working on the two sites, the following is an explanation of the 
responsibility of each department for each of the sites: 

3 rd and Evans 

SFWD: provide the operators, truck drivers, carpenters, equipment and materials required to 
excavate the site in order to expose the leak. The cost for this work is S9.288. 

SFFD: provide the plumbers in order to replace the damaged pipe gaskets. The cost for this 
work is SI 0,254. 

DPW: provide the cement finishers, laborers and equipment required to replace the roadway 
section after all pipe repairs are complete. The cost for this work is S 

Evans and Selbv: 



DPW: provide the Mechanical Engineers required to prepare construction plans specifications 
and estimates for the repair of the pipe leak. The cost for this work is S26.083. 

DPT: provide the traffic engineers required to prepare the traffic routing plans needed during 
construction. The cost for this work is $3,477 

The standard practice for handling release of reserves and the transfer of funds to the various 
departments and agencies is that DPW issues work orders. This way there is one point of contact for 
handling the transaction and most importantly tracking the funds.- 

If you have any questions, please call me at 558-4045 

attachment 

c: Project File 



■IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN SAN FRANCISCO' We are dedicated mcwouais committed to teamwork, 
customer service and continuous imorovemem in oartnershic with the community 

1 c. 



2rd and Evans AWSS Pipe Repair 



Ec jipmeni and Material Cost Estimate ror AWSS Repair 



Attachment III 
- u aee 2 or 3 



Eacknoe 
Dump Truck 
Boom Truck 
Steel Plate 
Gaskets 



Cry 
24 

24 

24 



Unit 




Rate 




Extension 


hours 


S 


30.00 


S 


720.00 


hours 


S 


36.00 


S 


864.00 


hours 


s 


25.00 


s 


500.00 


days 


s 


100.00 


s 


500.00 


9acn 


s 


25.00 


s 


50.00 



2.734.00 



Cost Estimate to Repair Roacway 



Backfill 

Asohart Concrete 
Concrete Ease 
Later 



Cty 

26 

2 

144 

1 



Unit 

tons 

tens 

si 

lump su:m 



Rate 
10 
1C0 
20 

2CC0 



extension 
S 360.00 

S 200.C0 

S 2.880.00 

S 2.0O0.00 

S 5.44Q.CC 



8.174.00 



Source: DeDartment of Public Works 



ecuioment estimate 



16 



Attachment III 
Page '1 or 5 

COSTS DO NOT INCLUDE MATERIALS. PARTS OR PAVING. THESE COSTS ARE FOR LABOR ONLY 
(Fire Department and Water Department) 

SAN FRANCISCO FIRE DEPARTMENT WORK SHEET 
12" high-pressure main break 

5:00PM Start Time 




EACH 


RATE 


CLASSIFICATION 


DATE 


LOCATION 


HOURS WORKED 


TOTAL 






overtime 














1 


S 69.00 


7250 Utility Plumber Sud. 


2/3/00 


EVANS & 3RD ST. 


6 


S 414.00 




1 


S 62.00 


7388 Utility Plumber 


2/3/00 


EVANS & 3RD ST 


6 


S 37200 




1 


S 38.00 


7514 General Laborer 


2/3/00 


EVANS & 3RD ST 


6 


S 228.00 














TOTALS 


S 1.014.00 




5:00PM Start Time 




EACH 


RATE 


CLASSIFICATION 


DATE 


LOCATION 


HOURS WORKED 


TOTAL 




1 


S 69.00 


7250 Utility Plumber Sud. 


2/4/00 


EVANS & 3RD ST. 


6 


S 414 00 




2 


$ 62.00 


7388 Utility Plumber 


2/4/00 


EVANS & 3RD ST 


6 


S 744 00 




1 


S 38.00 


7514 General Laborer 


2/4/00 


EVANS & 3RD ST 


6 


S 22300 














TOTALS 


S 1.386.00 




5:00PM Start Time 




EACH 


RATE 


CLASSIFICATION 


DATE 


LOCATION 


HOURS WORKED 


TOTAL 




1 


S 69.00 


7250 Utility Plumber Sup. 


2/6/00 


EVANS & 3RD ST. 


14 


S 966.00 




2 


S 62.00 


7388 Utility Plumber 


2/6/00 


EVANS & 3RD ST. 


14 


S 1,736 00 




1 


S 38.00 


7514 General Laborer 


2/6 00 


EVANS & 3RD ST 


14 


S 532.00 




1 


S 49.00 


7355 Truck Driver SFWD 


2/6/00 


EVANS & 3RD ST 


14 


S 686.00 




1 


S 58.00 


7328 Oper. Eng. SFWD 


2/6/00 


EVANS & 3RD ST 


14 


S 812.00 




1 


S 54.00 


7344 Carpenter SFWD 


2/6/00 


EVANS & 3RD ST 


14 


S 756.00 














TOTALS 


S 5,488.00 




5:00PM Start Time 




EACH 


RATE 


CLASSIFICATION 


DATE 


LOCATION 


HOURS WORKED 


TOTAL 




1 


S 69.00 


7250 Utility Plumber Sud. 


2/7/00 


EVANS & 3RD ST. 


6 


S 414.00 




• 2 


S 62.00 


7388 Utility Plumber 


2/7/00 


EVANS & 3RD ST. 


6 


S 74400 




1 


S 38.00 


7514 General Laborer 


2/7/00 


EVANS & 3RD ST 


6 


S 22800 




1 


S 49.00 


7355 Truck Driver SFWD 


2/7/00 


EVANS & 3RD ST. 


6 


S 294 00 




1 


S 58.00 


7328 Oper. Eng. SFWD j 2/7/00 


EVANS & 3RD ST. 


6 


S 348 00 




2 


S 54.00 


7344 Carpenter SFWD 2/7/00 


EVANS & 3RD ST. 


6 


S 648.00 










TOTALS S 2.676.00 




5:00PM Start Time 




EACH 


RATE 


CLASSIFICATION DATE 


LOCATION HOURS WORKED 


TOTAL 




1 


S 69.00 


7250 Utility Plumber Sud. j 2/12/00 


EVANS & 3RD ST. | 14 


S 956.00 




2 


S 62.00 


7388 Utility Plumber j 2712/00 


EVANS & 3RD ST | 14 




1 


S 38.00 


7 51 4 General Laborer | 2/12/00 


EVANS & 3RD ST. | ',4 |S 532.00 




1 


S 49.00 


7355 Truck Driver SFWD | 2/12/00 


EVANS & 3RD ST j 14 |S 686.00 




1 


S 58.00 


7328 ODer. Eng. SFWD | 2/12/00 


EVANS & 3RD ST. | 14 |S 812.00 




2 


S 54.00 


7344 CarDenter SFWD | 2/12/00 


EVANS & 3RD ST. | ',4 \S '.512.00 






TOTALS I S 6.244.00 






TOTAL COSTS IS 16.808.00 



Source: Fire Department and Department of Public Works 



17 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

March 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Items 3 and 4 - Files 00-0311 and 00-0412 



1. Item 4, File 00-0311 is a hearing to consider the 1999-2000 Budget Status 
Report issued by the Controller. Item 5, File 00-0412 is a hearing to consider the 
Three Year Budget Projection joint report prepared by, the Mayor's Budget 
Director, the Controller and the Board of Supervisors Budget Analyst. 

2. The Controller's 1999-2000 Budget Status Report was prepared in 
conformance with Charter Section 3.105 and issued on February 8, 2000. The report 
is based on General Fund revenues received and appropriations expended through 
the first six months of Fiscal Year 1999-2000, ending December 31, 1999. The report 
noted that the City's revised FY 1999-2000 budget as of that date included 
unappropriated reserves of $27.6 million. The Controller also projected that 
projected actual revenues for FY 1999-2000 exceed the revised budget by §54.4 
million and total estimated expenditures and transfers for FY 1999-2000 were $8.2 
million less than appropriations. In total, therefore, the Controller projected a 
favorable year end General Fund surplus of $90.2 million (comprised of the $27.6 
million in unappropriated reserves, $54.4 million in projected excess revenues and 
$8.2 million in estimated expenditure savings.) 

3. At the time the Controller's 1999-2000 Budget Status Report was issued, the 
Controller noted that the projected FY" 1999-2000 surplus of $90.2 million was $25.2 
million less than the $115.4 million FY 1998-99 surplus used as a source of funds to 
balance the FY 1999-2000 budget. Therefore, although the projected FY 1999-2000 
budget surplus of $90.2 million indicated that the City remains in sound financial 
condition, the fact that the projected General Fund surplus was less than the prior 
year surplus used to fund the FY 1999-2000 budget indicated that the City would 
have approximately $25.2 million less surplus funds to fund the FY 2000-2001 
budget ($115.4 million less $90.2 million). 

In addition to the Controller's 1999-2000 Budget Status Report issued after the first 
six months of each Fiscal Year, the Controller also issues a follow-up nine month 
Budget Status Report with updated estimates of the status of the General Fund 
budget. The Controller's nine month report is typically issued in late April or early 
May of each year. 



4. On March 6, 2000, the Three Year Budget Projection joint report prepared by, 
the Mayor's Budget Director, the Controller and the Board of Supervisors' Budget 
Analyst was issued. This report is required by Administrative Code Section 3.6. 
This report provides three year projections of General Fund revenues and other 
sources of funds as well as the estimated cost of providing the current level of City 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

18 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

March 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

services using current business practices. The report is not intended to commit the 
City to future spending levels. Such actual spending levels will be subject to the 
availability of funds and policy decisions of the Mayor and Board of Supervisors. 



The joint report projected revenue shortfalls for each of the next three Fiscal Years: 
$24.4 million in the forthcoming FY 2000-01, $40.4 million in FY 2001-2002 and 
$55.4 million in FY 2002-2003. The report emphasizes that all of these final 
budgets, as required by State law, will be balanced and all projected shortfalls will 
be eliminated. 



5. The projected $24.4 million revenue shortfall for FY 2000-2001 is comprised 
of the following key elements: a) a reduction of available surplus funds from the 
prior year of $25.2 million as noted above; b) increased General Fund revenues of 
$78.0 million (net of reduced Department of Public Health revenues amounting to 
$11.7 million); and c) net increased estimated expenditures and uses of funds of 
$77.2 million. In summary therefore, the reduced prior year surplus funds available 
($25.2 million) and increased expenditures and uses of funds ($77.2 million) are 
offset by a projection of $78.0 million in increased revenue, resulting in a projected 
$24.4 million revenue shortfall for FY' 2000-2001. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

lq 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 5 - File 00-0348 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 



Description: 



Department of Human Services (DHS) 

Hearing to consider a release of $200,000 reserved in the 
Department of Human Services Fiscal Year 1999-2000 
budget to fund the CalWORKs College Scholarship 
Program. 

$200,000 

General Fund monies reserved in the Fiscal Year 1999- 
2000 Department of Human Services budget. During the 
FY 1999-2000 budget hearings, the Finance and Labor 
Committee recommended and the full Board of Supervisors 
approved that $200,000 for the CalWORKs College 
Scholarship Program be placed on reserve pending 
submission of program budget details. 

The Department of Human Services (DHS) is now 
requesting a release of this $200,000 in reserved funds from 
the Fiscal Year 1999-2000 Department of Human Services 
budget for the CalWORKs College Scholarship Program. 
This scholarship program provides approximately $2,000 
annually to eligible CalWORKs participants pursuing 
college degrees that extend beyond their 18 to 24 month 
limit on aid and services provided by CalWORKs. The 
subject $200,000 in reserved funds would fund the first 
year of the scholarship program, from June 2000 until June 
2001, at an estimated cost of $140,000 for annual 
scholarships ($2,000 each for approximately 70 students) 
and $60,000 for administrative costs. Under CalWORKs. 
families receiving Temporary Assistance to Needy Families 
(TANF) must be enrolled in a personalized welfare to work 
plan to qualify to receive aid. CalWORKs recipients must 
move to employment within 18 to 24 months after enrolling 
in their welfare to work plan. Recipients who do not move 
to employment within 18 to 24 months will be penalized 
and lose the adult portion of their aid (the children in the 
family will continue receiving aid). 1 



1 According to Ms. Janet Diamond of DHS, the 24-month time limit applies to recipients already 
receiving aid when CalWORKs was first implemented in April 1998. The 18-month time limit applies 
to recipients who applied for aid after the April 1998 implementation date. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



?n 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



One way CalWORKs recipients can meet their welfare to 
work requirements during the first 18 to 24 months is to 
enroll in an approved educational program or vocational 
training. After 18 to 24 months, CalWORKs recipients will 
lose the adult portion of their benefits if they do not find 
employment or perform 32 hours a week of community 
service. 

The CalWORKs College Scholarship Program is designed to 
support CalWORKs participants pursuing college degrees 
that extend beyond their 18 to 24 month limit on aid and 
services. According to Ms. Janet Diamond of DHS, the 
CalWORKs College Scholarship Program will make up the 
amount of cash aid a recipient loses for not meeting the 
work/community service requirement (approximately 
$1,200 annually per student) plus the costs of CalWORKs 
benefits such as ;i Fasl Pass for parent and children 
(approximately $800 annually per student), for an 
estimated total of $2,000 annually per student. According 
to Ms. Diamond, the exact amount of scholarship money 
given i" a CalWORK- student would be based on the exact 
amount of cash aid that particular student Lost due to being 
penalized for not meeting work/community service 
requirements 

A community-based organization (CBO) would administer 

the $2,000 per student CalWORKs College Scholarship 
Program, as well as provide a mentoring service for 
students receiving a CalWORKs scholarship. According to 
Ms. Diamond. DHS will issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) 
on March 9, 2000 to select a CBO to administer the 
program. DHS estimates the administrative costs to be 
$60,000 ($20,000 to be used in Fiscal Year 1999-2000 and 
$40,000 to be used in Fiscal Year 2000-2001). Ms. Diamond 
reports that DHS will not have budget details for the CBO 
administrative costs totaling $60,000 listed in the summary 
budget shown below until DHS selects a CBO. Ms. 
Diamond anticipates that DHS will select a CBO by April 
30. 2000. Ms. Diamond advises that the CBO contract to 
administer the scholarship would begin June 1. 2000 to 
ensure enrollment of eligible student participants before 
classes begin in August of 2000. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Budget: 



The subject $200,000 in reserved funds were reserved for 
the current Fiscal Year 1999-2000. However, the 
Attachment to this report, provided by DHS, explains that 
DHS will not be able to spend $180,000 of the subject 
$200,000 during Fiscal Year 1999-2000 because during this 
fiscal year no CalWORKs college students will become 
eligible for the CalWORKs College Scholarship Program. 
DHS thus requests that the remaining $180,000 in reserved 
funds be released as a project appropriation to be carried 
forward to allow DHS to use the funds in Fiscal Year 2000- 
2001, as explained in the Attachment. 

The summary budget for the subject $200,000 in reserved 
funds, to be used in Fiscal Year 1999-2000 and Fiscal Year 
2000-2001, is as follows: 



CalWORKs College 
Scholarship Program 


FY 

1999-2000 


FY 

2000-2001 


Total 
Combined 


Estimated Number of Students 
to Receive CalWORKs 
Scholarships 





70 


70 


Scholarship Funds (Estimated 
82,000 per student per year) 




$140,000 


$140,000 




Contract to CBO to Administer 
Scholarship and Mentoring 
Program 


S20,000 


40,000 


60,000 


Total Project Costs: 


$20,000 


$180,000 


$200,000 



Comments: 



1. The Budget Analyst notes that DHS has not yet issued a 
Request for Proposal (RFP) to select a CBO to administer 
the CalWORKs College Scholarship Program, and thus 
does not yet have details to support the administrative 
costs, estimated to be $60,000 ($20,000 for Fiscal Year 
1999-2000 plus $40,000 for Fiscal Year 2000-2001), as 
listed in the summary budget shown above. According to 
Ms. Diamond, DHS will issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) 
on March 9, 2000 to select a CBO to administer the 
CalWORKs College Scholarship Program. Ms. Diamond 
anticipates that DHS will select a CBO by April 30, 2000, 
and that the CBO contract to administer the CalWORKs 
College Scholarship Program will begin June 1, 2000. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



99 



Memo to Finance and Labor Commit I 

March 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



2. Therefore, the Budget Analyst recommends that the 
subject resolution be amended to release $140,000, of the 
total $200,000, in reserved funds for direct scholarship 
costs as a project appropriation to continue forward for 
DHS to use in Fiscal Year 2000-2001. The remaining 
$60,000 in reserved funds budgeted for administrative costs 
($20,000 for Fiscal Year 1999-2000 plus $40,000 for Fiscal 
Year 2000-2001) should remain on reserve until DHS has 
selected a community-based organization to administer the 
CalWORKs College Scholarship Program and DHS can 
provide budget details for the program's administrative 
costs. 

3. Furthermore, as covered by DHS in the Attachment, the 
CalWORKs College Scholarship Program is being funded 
with "one-time only" monies. Since the proposed funds 
would extend through June of Fiscal Year 2000-2001, DHS 
advises that the department will not be requesting 
additional funds for the subject scholarship program in the 
upcoming Fiscal Year 2000-2001 budget. However, 
according to Ms. Diamond, DHS plans to request an 
additional estimated $200,000 in funding for the 
CalWORKs College Scholarship Program for Fiscal Y'ear 
2001-2002 in its Fiscal Year 2001-2002 budget request. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed release of reserved funds to reduce 
the requested amount of $200,000 to $140,000 (the 
$200,000 request less the $60,000 budgeted for 
administrative costs), in accordance with Comment No. 2 
above. 

2. Approve the release of $140,000 in reserved funri 
amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

23 



Attachment 
Page 1 of 2 



City and County of San Francisco Department of Human Services 



MEMORANDUM 

March 7, 2000 

TO: Emilie Neumann 

Budget Analyst's-Office 

FROM: Julie Brenman 

Director of Planning and Budget 

RE: CalWORKs Scholarships 

This is to respond to some of your specific questions about DHS' request to release the 
reserved funding for CalWORKs Scholarships. 

Origin of Funding 

During the FY 99-00 Budget hearings, the Board of Supervisors Finance Committee 
placed S200,000 in the DHS budget for the CalWORKs scholarship program. This 
funding was placed on reserve pending further program definition. The funding was also 
designated as "one-time only" by the Finance Committee. 

The CalWORKs Scholarship Program is designed to support CalWORKs participants 
pursuing four year college degrees after their 1 8/24-month limit on services is reached. 
The Board of Supervisors funded this program to allow eligible CalWORKs participants 
that have reached their lS/24-month time limit to continue to attend college without 
bearing a losing income. The scholarship will make up the amount of the lost cash grant. 

Program Development and Timing 

DHS established a community workgroup to develop the program, coordinate academic 
resources with the scholarship fund, and ensure that the Department carries out the 
Board's intentions. The workgroup is comprised of DHS staff. Advocates from Coleman 
Advocates, Family Rights and Dignity. Lifetime, the Women's Democratic Forum, 
administrators and staff from City College of San Francisco and San Francisco State 
University. The workgroup recommended that the project management be contracted to a 
community organization and DHS will issue an RFP this month. 

We have not requested to spend any funds on CalWORKs Scholarships yet because no 
CalWORKs college student will reach rusher 18/24 months of services during this fiscal 
year. However, beginning in summer 2000. this will begin to occur. We plan to begin 
services in June 2000 to ensure enrollment of eligible student participants before classes 
beain in the August 2000. 



(415)557-5000 P.O. Box 7988 San Francisco, California 94120 



Attachment II 
Page 2 of 2 



Request for Project Budget 

We are requesting the funds be placed into a project budget because the program must 
follow an academic calendar, not a city fiscal calendar. The two calendars are not 
compatible. In addition, the commitment of scholarship money will be for more than one 
year and DHS will need to assure the students of financial support for the duration with 
confidence. We are asking the student to take a sanction, an action we - and they - do 
not take lightly. The process is not easy to institute and not easy to remedy. We must be 
sure we are able to commit to the whole process until graduation. 

As this program was funded with one-time money and because we were instructed to 
submit a baseline budget for FY 00-01 that did not include any one-time programs, we 
have not requested funding for the CalWORKs Scholarship program in FY 00-01. If 
these funds are placed in a project budget, we anticipate that we will be able to meet all 
program needs through June 2001 with the FY 99-00 allocation of S200.000. 

Budget 

The cost of managing the fund and the mentoring program is S60.000. The amount to be 
spent in FY99-00 will be about $20,000 due to initial start-up costs. Since we have not 
received the proposals from the community agencies yet. we cannot specify exactly how 
the contractor will allocate the program resources. We will ensure that no more than 
S60,000 is spent on administration of the program and services to program participants. 
If less than S60.000 is needed for this component, we will reallocate an savings to the 
scholarships themselves. 

We have allocated SI 40.000 for the scholarships. This will serve approximately 70 
students (each scholarship is calculated based on loss of aid. which vanes by case, so we 
cannot provide exact amounts). New students will become eligible each month as they 
reach their 24-month limit on services. 



If you have any additional questions, please contact me at 557-5641. 



2S 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 6 - File 00-0183 

Department: Tax Collector 

Item: Ordinance amending Article 6 of Part III of the San 

Francisco Municipal Code by providing that any 
claim for refund of Business Taxes paid be filed 
within six months from the time the return was 
filed or the tax was paid, whichever period expires 
later, with the exception that in no event shall such 
period expire prior to the shortest period allowable 
for filing tax refund claims under Title 1, Division 
3.6, Part 3, Section 911.2 of the California 
Government Code. 

Description: The proposed ordinance would replace the City's 

current three-3 r ear and 90-day limitation periods 
for filing a claim for the refunding of overpayments 
or erroneous payment of Business Taxes (i.e., 
Payroll Taxes and Gross Receipts Taxes) paid to 
the City with one new six-month limitation period, 
as established by the California Tort Claims Act. 
Currently, the City has a 90-day limitation period 
for filing claims for Business Tax refunds based on 
United States and California Constitutional and 
statutory issues and a three-year limitation period 
for filing claims for Business Tax refunds based on 
all other issues. 

Under the proposed ordinance, the limitation of 
time would be six months regardless of the type of 
claim. This six-month period would extend from the 
time the Business Tax Return was due to the City, 
or the Business Taxes were paid to the City, 
whichever of these periods expires later, until the 
verified written claim stating the specific grounds 
for filing the claim was submitted to the Tax 
Collector. The proposed ordinance would also add 
language that the written claim for refunds must 
contain specificity sufficient to enable the Tax 
Collector to understand and evaluate the claim. 

In addition, the proposed ordinance states that the 
period to file the claim for the Business Tax refund 
cannot expire before the shortest period allowable 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Commit I 

March 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

for filing the tax refund claim under Title 1. 
Division 3.6, Part 3. Section 911.2 of the California 
Government Code, which is the current California 
Tort Claims Act, or any successor provision as 
amended from time to time. 

The proposed ordinance also states that these new 
provisions would not apply to extinguish existing 
causes of action. However, any causes of action thai 
are not time-barred as of the effective date of this 
ordinance, would expire six months after the 
effective date of this amendment, or on the date 
such cau>< of action would ha\ i. whichever 

occurs tn>t. According to Mr. George Putris of the 
City Attorney's Office, this provision pertains to 
existing claims against the City for Business Tax 
refund-. Buch that, if the proposed ordinance is 
approved, as of the effective date of this ordinance. 
the statute of limitation for existing claims will be 
either (1) reduced to six months, as proposed under 
this ordinance or (2) the amount of time remaining, 
if it is less than six months. The Clerk of the Board 
of Supervisors is also directed to remove this 
specific transitional provision from Section 6.15-1 
of the City's Administrative Code after 42 months 
(3.5 years) of the effective date of this ordinance. 

Comments: 1. Mr. Pat Mahoney of the City Attorney's Office 

advises that, to date. Business Tax claims for 
refunds have been filed by over 70 different 
business entities seeking refunds in excess of $100 
million from the City and County of San Francisco. 
According to Mr. Mahoney, from the over 70 claims 
filed, five separate lawsuits have resulted, with the 
expectation that additional lawsuits will be filed. 
Mr. Mahoney reports that, on March 3, 2000, San 
Francisco Superior Court heard taxpayer motions 
for summary judgement on the first two lawsuits, 
filed by General Motors and Eastman Kodak 
against the City. According to Mr. Mahoney, the 
Superior Court issued tentative rulings rejecting 
the plantiffs' claim that the City's Business Tax 
was unconstitutional as a matter of law. The Court 
also tentatively struck down the City's current 
statute of limitation of 90 days, which is the subject 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Mahoney advises 
that the General Motors and Eastman Kodak cases 
are presently set for trial on May 30, 2000. 

2. According to Mr. Mahoney, the City Attorney's 
Office is now recommending that the proposed 
ordinance be amended to a six-month period, as a 
result of a recent recommendation by the League of 
California Cities. 

3. ^According to Mr. Mahoney, the City previously 
selected the 90-day period because, as a Charter 
City, the City has sovereign power over municipal 
affairs under Article XI, Section 5, Subdivision (a) 
of the California Constitution to adopt claim-filing 
procedures and periods of limitations independent 
of the enabling legislation contained in Title 1, 
Division 3.6, Part 3 of the California Government 
Code. Mr. Mahoney advises that the current 90-day 
limitation period was established to provide prompt 
notice to the City and County of San Francisco 
regarding any legal challenges to the validity of 
taxes imposed by the Municipal Code. Such prompt 
notice allows the City to cure any defects in the 
taxes during the current taxable year and thereby 
protect the City's revenues for that fiscal year. 

4. Extending the current 90-day (three month) 
period for filing constitutional claims to six months 
will provide an additional three-month period for 
businesses to file such tax refund claims with the 
City. However, the proposed ordinance will also 
reduce the current three year (36 month) limitation 
period for all other claims to the same six-month 
period, and thereby reduce this limitation period by 
30 months. Mr. Mahoney advises that since the 
proposed ordinance would both reduce the period of 
time permitted for some claimants which may 
potentially reduce the number of claims filed, while 
simultaneously increasing the period of time 
permitted for other claimants, which may 
potentially increase the number of claims filed, the 
fiscal impact of such changes is uncertain. The 
Fiscal Year 1999-2000 Annual Appropriation 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Ordinance includes total Business Tax revenu* 
$246,450,000. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy 

matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

29 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 15. 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 7 - File 00-0309 

1. This item is a hearing to discuss the possibility of submitting a bond 
initiative to the electorate for the November of 2000 ballot to address (a) the 
infrastructural needs of the Department of Public Health (DPH) Community Health 
Network, including San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH) and the primary care 
centers, and (b) placement of City health clinics in San Francisco's public schools. 

2. DPH has identified four main areas requiring capital improvements in 
the next three to five years. These areas include (a) capital investments for repair 
and renovation of SFGH and -the primary care centers throughout the City, (b) 
capital improvements to DPH Population Health and Prevention facilities, (c) State- 
mandated seismic retrofitting or replacement of SFGH, and (d) a new ambulatory 
care center and research facility to be located on the SFGH campus 1 . Additionally, 
the DPH has estimated that the masonry buildings on the SFGH campus will 
require extensive seismic retrofitting, as noted below. The attached memorandum 
provided by DPH (Attachment I) provides an explanation of these proposed capital 
improvements. 

3. A summary of the estimated capital improvement costs is as follows: 



Capital Investments, Community Health Network 
SFGH 

Primary Care Centers 
Population Health and Prevention Facilities 
State-mandated Seismic Retrofitting 

and Upgrades at SFGH 
New Medical Clinic and Research Facility 
Total 



$12,877,300 

14,184.057 

856,000 

19,350,000 

51.650.000 to 61.800.000 

$98,917,357 to $109,067,357 



4. According to Ms. Monique Zmuda of DPH, many of the proposed 

capital improvement projects at SFGH and in the primary care centers were 
identified previously but not implemented due to insufficient funding. Mr. Eric 
Miller, Director of DPH Facilities Management, states that the proposed capital 
improvement projects at SFGH, totaling $12,877,300, would (a) increase the 
outpatient capacity of the Rehabilitation Department. Emergency Department, and 
Wound Care Clinic, (b) improve the public's access to the SFGH campus, (c) provide 
funding to develop a long-range master plan for the SFGH campus, with particular 
emphasis on the seismic improvement requirements of SB 1953 (see below), and (d) 



1 DPH did not provide information on capital improvements at Laguna Honda Hospital since the 
voters approved a bond measure in November of 1999 for the rebuilding of Laguna Honda Hospital. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

30 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

various other projects, including improvement of the campus computer network, 
repair of roof membranes, upgrade of patient television installations, and 
replacement of mechanical components Approximately $1,500,000 in maintenance 
costs is included in the estimate of $12,877,300. 

The DPH priority capital improvements at the 20 primary 'are centers, for a total 
estimated cost of $14,184,057, include (a) expansion of clinic exam rooms, (b) 
reconfiguration of eligibility areas at several health centers to expedite processing of 
patients, (c) improvement of public access to the clinics, and (d) approximately 
$500,000 in maintenance project- According to Ms. Zmuda, DPH has designated 
four health clinics as high priority: Maxim- Hall Health Center located at 1301 
Pierce Street, Southeast Health Center located at -1"1 Keith Street. North of 
Market Clinic located at 333 Turk Street, and Silver Avenue Family Health Cent<-r 
located at 1525 Silver Avenue. Capital improvement projects at these four health 
centers include renovation of existing space to provide more clinical space. 

Attachment II, provided by DPH. contains an explanation and costs detail- of the 
proposed capital improvement projects for San Francisco General Hospital and the 
primary care centers. 

5. The DPH Population Health and Prevention Division estin 
$856,000 in capital repairs, including repairs to the Central Administration 
Building located at 101 Grove Street and to the Redwood Center mental health 
facility, located in Redwood City. Additionally, of the estimated $856,000 in capital 
projects, $450,000 would be allocated to facilities maintenance projects (Attachment 
III). 

6. SB 1953, which was approved by the State Legislature in 1996, 
requires acute care hospitals such as SFGH to meet a higher -tandard of seismic 
performance before the year 2030. All hospitals are required to perform a seismic 
safety evaluation and submit a written report to the State for official review by 
January 1. 2001. Additionally, each acute care hospital must submit a compliance 
plan to the State before January 1. 2002, describing the proposed remediation of 
seismic deficiencies. According to Ms. Zmuda, DPH has issued a Request for 
Qualifications (RFQ) and will select a consultant team by April of 2000 to perform 
an assessment of the hospital's seismic performance needs. The consultant team 
will begin an evaluation of the SFGH seismic performance needs this year, 
including a geotechnical evaluation, a detailed structural engineering review and 
analysis of the structural frame, and a complete survey of non-structural systems 
serving hcipitalized patients. These studies include evaluations of the SFGH main 
hospital building, the power plant, and major utility systems located in service 
tunnels. The consultant team will also assess specific hospital subsystems (medical 
gases, electrical power, water, fire sprinklers), which are required by SB 1953 to 
meet more stringent seismic requirements. These hospital subsystem requirements 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

31 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

are to be phased in between 2002 and 2008. The consultant's technical report, 
evaluating the hospital's seismic deficiencies, will be submitted to the State prior to 
January 1, 2001. Ms. Zmuda states that DPH will request $2,050,000 in the FY 
2000-2001 Capital and Facilities Maintenance budget for immediate seismic 
upgrades. Attachment IV, provided by DPH, contains an explanation of these 
proposed seismic upgrades and related costs. An additional estimated amount of 
$17,300,000 will be required over the next six years (through FY 2005-2006) to 
perform seismic retrofitting work at SFGH, for a total estimate of seismic work of 
$19,350,000. Attachment IV also provides an explanation for the additional 
estimated $17,300,000 in seismic upgrade costs ($19,350,000 less $2,050,000). 

7. The DPH Community Health Network has proposed the development 
of a new Medical Clinic and Research Facility at SFGH. According to Mr. Miller, 
the 10 masonry buildings on the SFGH campus, housing the ambulatory care 
clinics, are obsolete and seismically at-risk. The proposed Medical Clinic and 
Research Facility, which would consist of approximately 120,000 square feet, would 
provide space for primary care and urgent care clinics, psychiatric services, and HIV 
outpatient services. Additionally, the facility would provide space for clinical 
activities that need to be relocated during the seismic retrofitting and upgrading of 
the main hospital. Mr. Miller states that the proposed Medical Clinic and Research 
Facility would also provide research laboratory and clinical research space to 
University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) faculty. According to Mr. Miller, 
such research facilities are necessary to recruit and retain medical staff, and that 
extra-mural research funding covers a percentage of the salaries of medical staff 
who provide care to Community Health Network patients. Additionally, Mr. Miller 
advises that the U.C. Regents will not enter into leases in seismically at-risk 
facilities after 2008. As shown in Attachment V, provided by DPH, the total 
estimated cost of the proposed Medical Clinic and Research Facility ranges from 
$51,650,000 to $61,800,000. 

8. As noted above, the ten masonry buildings on the SFGH campus require 
extensive seismic upgrades. According to Mr. Miller, the Department of Public 
Works Bureau of Architecture estimated the cost of such upgrades to be 
approximately $142,000,000. Currently, these buildings are used for outpatient 
services, offices, and research space. Mr. Miller states that, under the proposed 
Medical Clinic and Research Facility plan, outpatient services and some research 
space would be moved to the new Medical Clinic and Research Facility. 2 Mr. Miller 
states that a general seismic repair program has not been fully formulated. Mr. 
Miller advises that seismic retrofitting costs are extensive and the estimated 



2 According to Mr. Miller, the proposed new Facility would contain 25.000 square feet of research 
space, compared to approximately 300,000 square feet of research space in the masonry buildings. 
Mr. Miller states that some research space will be moved to the UCSF facility at Mission Bay, but 
that DPH will have a continued need for approximately 100.000 square feet of research space in 
addition to the proposed new Facility. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

32 



Memo to Finance and Labor Commr 

March 15, 2000 Finance and Labor Comrr. iting 

schedule of repairs would be approximately 10 years. Ms. Zmuda states that DPH 
will evaluate both the costs and possible uses of these buildings. 

9. Ms. Zmuda states that DPH is developing a strategic plan, which will 
define the level and scope of health services provided over the next several years. 
The recommendations of the strategic plan will be presented to the Health 
Commission prior to December 31. 2000. A- stated in Attachment I. 
recommendations from the strategic planning process may result in revisions to the 
proposed capital plan. Ms. Zmuda advises that the proposed capital requirement- 
pending the results of the DPH strategic planning process and the SFGH seismic 
performance evaluation, are preliminary 

10. According to Mr. Enrique Navas of the San Francisco Unified School 
District (SFUSD), the SFUSD has not undertaken an assessment of the capital 
lequirements and costs of implementing a school-based health clinic proirram. 

11. According to Mr. Ben Rosenfield of the Mayor's Office, in order to 
qualify for the November of 2000 ballot. DPH would have to submit details 
support the proposed bond measure for DPH capital improvement program- to the 
Capital Improvement Advisory Committee by M DO. If the proposed bond 
measure is approved by the Capital Improvement Advisory Committee, the Board of 
Supervisors would have to adopt an ordinance on or before July 24. 2000. for the 
submission of the bond measure to the voters in the November of 2000 election. 

12. According to Ms. Sarah Hollenbeck of the Mayor's Office of Public 
Finance, the City Charter provides for a legal debt limit of three percent of net 
assessed property value. The Mayor's Office of Public Finance has calculated the 
City's Debt Limit Ratio as follows: 

Total City Debt Limit for FY 1999-2000 1 14.446.916 

Outstanding General Obligation Bonds 897.900.000 

Remaining General Obligation Bond Capacity SI. 216. 546. 916 

Ms. Hollenbeck states that an additional SS10.545.000 in General Obligation Bonds 
have been authorized by the voters but have not yet been issued. Of this amount, 
the Mayor's Office of Public Finance expects to issue S393.085.000 prior to 
December 31. 2000. as follows: 

Community College District S 29.605.000 

San Francisco Zoo 15.000.000 

Affordable Housing 20.000.000 

San Francisco Unified School District 29.480.000 

Laguna Honda Hospital 299.000.000 

Total S393.085.000 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

33 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 15. 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Additionally, on March 7, 2000, the voters approved the Recreation and Park 
Department's $110,000,000 bond issue. As of the writing of this report, the outcome 
of the Academy of Sciences' S87.445.000 bond issue has not been decided. Approval 
of both bond issues would authorize an additional S 197.445.000 in General 
Obligation Bonds. Ms. Hollenbeck states that the Mayor's Office of Public Finance 
expects to issue $5,000,000 in Academy of Sciences bonds prior to December 31, 
2000, in addition to the $393,085,000 noted above, totaling $398,085,000. 




[arvey M. Rose 



cc: Supervisor Yee 

Supervisor Bierman 
President Ammiano 
Supervisor Becerril 
Supervisor Brown 
Supervisor Katz 
Supervisor Kaufman 
Supervisor Leno 
Supervisor Newsom 
Supervisor Teng 
Supervisor Yaki 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Legislative Analyst 
Erin McGrath 
Stephen Kawa 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

3h 



City and County of San Francisco 



Attachment I 
Page 1 o"F~ 




Department of Public Health 

Mitchell H. Katz, M.D. 
Director of Health 




Date: March 7, 2000 

Memo To: Harvey Rose 

Budget Analvst 

From: Monique Zmuda 

Chief Financial Officer 



Re: Capital Requirements for Department of Public Health Facilities 



This memo is in response to requests for information regarding the hearing of the Finance 
and Labor Committee on the capital requirements for the Department of Health. 

The Department of Health has evaluated the capital needs for its clinical facilities for the 
next three to five years, and has prepared proposals for the consideration by the Board of 
Supervisors and the Mayor. The following pages summarize the capital needs for the 
Department of Public Health's acute care hospital and clinics. (This report excludes 
capital projects for Laguna Honda Hospital since it will be rebuild over the next seven 
years). 

Our initial assessment of facilities indicates that the Department of Health requires capital 
investments for repair and renovation of our primary care clinics throughout the 
community. Renovations are required to provide additional examination rooms and other 
clinical space, to improve patient flow, and to expand dental service areas. In the area of 
acute care, the Department of Health must comply with the SB 1953 Facilities Seismic 
Safety Act which requires SFGH to meet a higher standard of seismic performance. This 
requirement will result in seismic retrofit or replacement of San Francisco General 
Hospital. The Department also proposes to build a new ambulator.' care and research 
facility on the grounds of the San Francisco General Hospital campus. This facility will 
relocate outpatient clinical services and medical research activities (for which the 
Department collects rental income) that are currently in the seismically compromised 
masonary buildings to this new facility. Finally, the Department proposes to complete 
seismic renovation of the masonary buildings at SFGH. These buildings, once renovated 
could be used administrative and other non-clinical uses, as well as for intermediate care, 
independent living or other supportive services. 

The attached report contains four components: 1 ) A list of capital improvements required 
to SFGH, the hospital based clinics, and the community based clinics; 2) A summary of 
the implementation of SB 1953 for SFGH: 3) A summary of the proposed construction of 



(415) 554-2600 



101 Cove Street 



35 



San Francisco. CA 94102 



Attachment I 
Paee 2 of 2 



the medical clinic and research facility and renovation of red brick buildings and 4) A 
summary of the need to complete seismic renovation of the masonary buildings at SFGH. 

The Department is in the process of developing a strategic plan, which will define the 
level and scope of services that will be provided over the next several years. The 
recommendations of the strategic plan will be presented to the Health Commission by 
year-ending 2000. The recommendations from the strategic planning process may result 
in revisions to the capital plan presented in this report. 

In addition, the Department is in the process of conducting a facility seismic assessment 
of San Francisco General Hospital. This includes a geotechnical evaluation, detailed 
structural review and analysis of the frame, and a survey of non-structural systems 
serving non-ambulatory patients. Results of this assessment will better define the 
components of the SB 1953 project for the next several years. The Department is also 
involved in a detailed ADA assessment of all of our facilities. As such, these projections 
of capital requirements for the Department of Health should be considered preliminary 
until the results of the strategic planning process and the seismic assessment studies have 
been completed. 



Attachment I 
Page 1 of 4 



s ofl 



,5 z '-> 



- § >. 2 ?< J 1 s 8 = 



oC 



Z 



£ 5c u --: 5 







— 
5 



y. 



3^5^ = = I 2 « I I 

g I I a i 1 | | = | | 

•5 S = = = * rf - - ^ 2 - U = < 



u- r < 



>| ^ - 3 3 3 - : .Si, a .- < 

— • - > \r -j- ., P *£ — ^c 

1 1 < g .f 2 | £ t = s> -= - = | 5 b -5 = 

x o 3 o s 5 s < = : ^ : i: '- ^ii.E = > k q 

-r «i - o «a « ,v d ^ n n < S a2 E O va -£ Z 



^ ag «j as £ U Va < 



37 



Attachment II 
fage 2 of 4 



o 3J 



> = < 5 = 









" 


CJ 


ci 


u 


> 


:< 












tu 








u 








~ 


j* 






















t2 


— 


o 






> 




vi 




•- 


u 








E- 


-5 


C 




U 


















u 










yj 


iO 


~ 



.£: s oo o 






o 


CO 


- 




> 


ii 


E: 


> 


S 


- 


~ 


^ 


s 































> 


Li 




Q. 


-E 


o 


-^ 


3 


- 


"2 


™ 


E 


u 


o 
o 


u 

u 


u 


< 

< 




a 


o 
u 




d 
o 


u 

>< 

o 

o 

u 


2? 5 
scE: 


1 

CJ 


o 


u 




>1 


> 


o 


y 


y 


- — E 5 


E/3 


E ° 


CJ 



5 £ o u 

o — .- 






o 

-• « -1 ° S 2, 




r^ T3 = a sovjaS-S-P-oSoooosSoslSd-Soo^o P_ o -2 s: rs 






ogoooggggggoog g 

o N s S [2 o" coo l-; -r' o" S g o" l-; 

m — -*- Lj i^ x x t— <3 w n ,- z« I s - r«- 



Z _ 



O 2 

r o " - - 

O E '^5 

^-> '~> u ~ r; « -t - - k — y H _ - 

~ — ± ~ — «o so ea u •— ~ — ~ — 

. E . * v "- E 5? r 1 '— — v. - - q = U ;j < 

~ < S Er U '~ "E < ?J 

.2 u * cm Er as — u — t>c ~ 



< e •= 






U « "5 - - « 

— — = E.= 3 - > -^ E: — >^ 

?? ~ S — U rj Z — '— — '- ~ 



38 



o 

O 

o 
o 



Attachment II 
Fage 3 of 4 




r- tc t. o — 
— — — :sj r\) 



_± ■- 
U = 






^ J Z 

ff I 2 



5 5 



-/ <~ 






39 







SO 














_~ 





















5 


— 


5 


- 


s 



a 
o 



C3 

O 

o 

o 
o 

'5 



c/i 






- o — o 






Attachment II 
Page A of 4 



O U _ c/5 -> 

s t> p; >, . < 

— — H -^ - ~. 
5 C c« — 5. r 

o o U « 5 = 

q o "T P o U 

— "S O o — o to 

CM .§ M^-S 

~J 3 "" W! "^ O P 

? {j <S H ~ -c n 

'— <■> 5. 5 = a " 

— ~* 5 "5 ~~ 2 P 

u — £ 



DO 



2-5 o = u - u 

!><j a .- O — 

.2 5-> -Z 
8 o 

§ s ^ a 2 £ 

s ■ = — - ^ <j 
u = o = -- 3? '-> 



o — X- J ^ - > — 
to *— to 






40 



Attachment II 



g 



fS 


- 


o 

o 


Q 
1 


o 
u 


q_ 
cT 
o 

CM 


> 






b 


2 
< 


- 



Q 



I 



u 



5 3 



5? P 



2 W — = 



x — 

w rz - 

y «5 = 

~ < t 

- v .y - 

' 3 b3 = 

'j - = ■' 






— f. 

15 



ji -* 



= ° > o o 

o « o o ~ 

- 2 "S « « 



y " a. - g 



a. ~ t> s 

u " « 1! 
- P 3? 5 



£>0 a. 
— o 



«S O — 3 - :2 

W ~ o •_, O - - 



-H -s -. S 



2 


= 


o 


O 


o 












,0 




l« 









_u 




ai 




U 


> 

p 


u 
u 


t/a 


- 






u 3 o s 



E K - 



- > 



U ft, ftfl «j i - 



v. — — 



:o2i!n 



:> 9 



= 1-8 
£ ~ 3 



Q 





10 


JJ 




S 


cm 




ftl 

ft) 


o 5 









— 




c 


— 




L 5 


~ k 












o 








o ^ 




















w >. 






r; 




































> 






y 






ft) 


'■j "^ 




















jz o 






B 


— 




r- 


5 




1.". 


r- 'zL- 






ft) 


_J 






u 






>< ~ 


























s 


5 




= 


r 




to 


o - 






£ 


•_/ 




u 


~ 




„ 


Qi 5 






ft) 






Kg 


s 






p — 












(^. 














'« 


3 
s 




i2 
u 




u 


o 
ft) 


W3 2 

'5 li 






o 


ft) 


.M 


H 


> 


r 


ft) 


S ■— 






3 


te 


5 


u 

u 


u 

3 


3 




ftl 

3 


o ,_2 
.2 5 






r: 


-^ 


■j 


^ 


tj 


— 


u 


"C > 






o 


B 




■^ 


JI 


DC 


u 


OB K 






5 
y 


ftl 
1 


y 

- 




ej 


> 


■c 


_o — 

"3 ~ 

«C ft) 

2 — 






3 


^. 


-y. 


^ 


> 


U 


'C 








y 


bl 


| 


-3 


y 


"' 


ft) 

ftl 


- s: 




2 



U 


"5 


Du 


r^ 


u 


u 




3 y 






,3 


>! 








(6 


















w 




ft) 3 




2 


_y 


- 


s 




= ' 


o 


f.^ 


H P 




U 


> 

p 


o 


u 


ft) 


u 


s 


ftl 


o _I 




2 


- 


s 


: J 


- 


>. 


- 


Si 






















~ 





O 

o 

q. 






O 
O 

q 






o 
o 
q 




- 


o" 






ta 










--c 


u 


If) 










B 




^- 



I ! 1 



y 

3 S 

'- ~ 



3 B 
- > 



^ V- 



2 IT 

^ o g 






41 



Attachment IV 



3^ 

"55 o 

£t<Tj 5 

o -B .2 
5 &| 

g 5 ° 
.2 * .a 



r j 



o 



CU _co 

O & T3 

y ., o 



CO 



o 



O CJ ~ -^ 

o ^ o c 

" o 



C O 

o 



Bj 



a 

g u . 

■3 s - 

1 § s 

• G j2 CJ 

jo J2 T3 
c« 



bC 






o 






,_ G ° <- ° 



o 



«s -2 o 

H 2 o 
o 



o .^ 



a — o 

r s > 
r^ O O 



a o - 

.S U ° 



^ .is 

to G4 

o o 

° 8. -2 

K ») ; 

Co"" 

O J^ ^ v 



2 T3 3 — ~ 

■SS-= is 5 



i., cj 

Cl, o 



^ G 

SO o 

^ -3 
>. g 

G ^ 

a 5 

3 G 

-G o 



-G G 5-i to 2 



■a & « 



u 00 
G ^ 

.2 G 

e3 CJ 

o £ 



o p 



«s g 



o 

G o 

o T3 

in "C 

co O 

° "o 

U £ 






>> 3 



co u o > G 
—j n d < vXJ 



O 
2* 7? 



^1 O 



i-G £ -G <^> 






^ o ^ 



CO 

O 



G - o .2 



co ,- 

3.2 



M co 

•-C G 



O G _: G 



o 



2 2 "g 



_^ CO 



CO 



-G T^ O _y 
o -* iu 

° '-G 5 G 

£ E, § | 

G r- (J > 

o 3 >, 2 

CO co .-G ^ 

G S > G 

-G O --G ts 

^ U3 U .O 

r^ ."G "C3 'C 

n S § .2? 



TO 
K 
G> 

CJ 

•H 

E 





CO 


^; 






CC 


_S 






cu 


« 






K 


CJ 






C5 


2 






to 








O 








CJ 










CJ 
















es 












5/5 


u 


-r; 




_o 




O 












r^ 


u 


'^ 




-— 
















.~ 


■rt 


o 






cu 






c/j 




o 




w 


•- 


T3 


^^ 


o 


.— 


es 


O 


13 


< 


Vj 


*«s. 

o 
o 



59 





a 






i 















— 








CJ 




, — s 


g 






to 


_ 




=5 


CO 






U 


2 




D- 








,o 




Q 


'S 






! . 


CJ 




^^ 


Q. 








r^ 




T> 


CD 






^ 


— 




g 


^j 






~ 


ss 




o 


i — 






W3 


3 




- 


O 








CJ 


^ 













•^ 


— ■ 


4J 






CJ 


o 


Cu, 


CM 


: - 






g 


> 


Q 


O 


— 






3. 


o 

CJ 




"§) 


o 

CM 


W3 


1 




u 


w 


p 


,o 


u 


5 




es 


■c 

cG 


_^ 


p 


3 

CJ 


p 


o 

o 


S 


£ 


es 


o 


3 




o 


u 


ej 


W3 


.~ 




Ci 


£Z 


trT 




a. 





CJ 


CM 





in 


o 


"* 


— 


^ 


o 


iS 


<Ti 


5. 


LTj 


,6C 


17. 


o 


o 


,— 


u 


Bfl 


E 


rj 


3 




c75 


~ 


u 

Q 



U 


£ 


c?5 


o 
o 

o 


o 
o 
o. 




O 
O 

o 


o 
o 
q 




o 
o 
q. 


o 
o 

CM 


CN 




C 1 
CM 


6 

CM^ 




LO 

q. 


V, 


<^ 




'S, 


— « 




cm" 








o<l 




'_ 






a 


—* 


n 


K 


5; 


- 






00 


CJ 


o 


g 


o 


^ 


CM 















^ 






' ' 


O 


u 


> 


CO 




CS 


00 


o 


o 

o 

CM 








o 








o .— r 



.O s. -3 



o 

o q« 

•\ o 

-ej" O 

o o 



M 








O 




> 








oo 


D 


O 


< 


o 


U3 


CM 




^*^ 


U. 


O 


U 


__ 


> 


— 


O 


CJ 


T5 












CS 


— 


2 


O 


O 














o 





o 


















C/0 


o 





CJ 


u 


,o 


_ : 



r i£ 



o 
, - o 

o °~ 
\ o 

L-J O 

o o^ 



<»^ u. <•> 



A? 



Attachment V 



O V Vi — 










^ J^ ~ - ~ 




^ 












\r. 


~— 


_> 




u ~ ~ >-> "c 







- 


— 




o > — 

> •"' — O — 




u 


< 







- ~ > o o 




o 

— 
— 


— 






a 


g 










73 


~ 


£S 




- 2 'J x 




> 


^. 


V 




u : «j p : 




o 


s. 


> 




3.2 o-g-S. 




— i 


•-'. 


> 


o 


EX O. o O 






X 
o 

> 


"P. 


o 


— — - — o <3 
~ ~ o o 

o ^ ° — _L 


o 
u 

o 
p 1 














— 




~ 


~ 




~ 


>• 





s E "a jd - 


o 




■-'. 

n 




u 

o 

'p' 


° g a w 

2 P G" - - 

~ — CJ O — 


V, 

ttJ 




u 


— 


Q. 


a a. ~ u — 


~ 








■5 o ° 

DP 4 4? 



— — • CJ 

-y. ~ .- 
3 S = 



_ ■-. — -> 



■y. 






- o 

- s E 

? _2 J - _- r 

5 = * 

U C5 - 



OC O 

— '-r ■= 
rE ** " - 

'5 o o 
,~ — ^ 
*- -Jj 

o d = 



= ""- - o 

r - 

_ 5 

T3 5 



— O i. p 
- r- - 







-'. 




ES 5 

_ v. 




;— 


a 










~. Z 


y 


r 














^ , 




— 


- 


o 


~ 







-.' 


' 


.' 


1 — — 


— ■ 




z 


- W 


*^ 


:-'. 


u 








— p 


_ 


— 






CJ 


c; 


(j 


3 — 




u 


1/5 


= 


= T3 


- 


j 


_ o 








— 'j, 


— 


X 




^. — 


— 


L 


~ 


Vj •— 


-_ 


t/; 


— 




^. 


c5 




^ 


'-^ 


— 


^ 












v. 


~ 


-- 


fe^ — 


U 


-- 






~ ~ ~ 2 

-^ -S '~ = 






■y. o _> . - > 
= b ^ - = 

fill! 



— — - t/s ~ 

fe o 5 2 



— ** ■> ~ ^> 









- — _ — ^ el s a." 

S |8g | -.§■■= ■§ 





— 


— 


o 


o 


o 


o o o c 






- 


_ 




o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o o o o 




o o o o 




Q 




O^ 


q. 


o_ 


q. 


o 


q, q. o q, 




o c^ o o_ 


' - 


q 




o 


o" 


o" 


o" 


d 


o" o" o" o" 


-j 


d o* d d 


~' 


Q 




o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


u-. O l- C 




o o c- o 




o 




o„ 


L*. 


<q 


c. 


o 


CM L" C 3C 




L-. 'C 55 N 


N 


vc 




IT) 


y" 


ri 


_" 


;-" 


V: _"^ W 


v" 


fj" _* ^ : -f 


-'" 






JfJ 


*4 


■0^ 


v^ 


44 


C V: C 


^ 


<^ <>*■ c 44 


^ 


. * 




«• 


G 


C 


Q 


n 


o -S O O 


Mr 


o c n a 


M 


*^ 

























o 


O 


o 


O 


o - o c 
q. o °- °. 


2 


o o ^ o 


< 


o 


Vj 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


~ 


o o -. o 


p 


— , 




o 


o 


q, 


q, 


q 


c o o" o* 


-^ 


q q, o q 


g 


s 


O 


q, 


o* 


o" 


o* 


Q 


L". -T L". L*. 

— s en l-. 


■^ 


d d 2 d 


-^ 


£ 


6" 


o 


o 


o 

CM 


o 


Li 


o o i; o 

N Pi I- 


l" 


L- 


U 


o" 


•44 


Vr 


v^ 


CM 


4>«r 


:< K 


J." — CM* 


/■ ~. 


-. 


^_ 


4"r 






bj 






< -c 




C- S 


H 


L- 


U 








Jp 






.- V. 




P ^ 


r: 


t* 


— 






^ 




^. 


J 





J 


^ 














































■c 






^ *\ 


c; 




^J 


^j 




5 


^ 


u — 


w 






o 

-> 


£ 


V-. 


V 


^" 




.1- F 


2 


u 


^ 






JT 1 * 


t: 


5 


"^ 


"^ 




^ ^ 


^ 


- 


^ 








be 


^ 


| 


w^" 




*2 •$* ~ — '- 


5 


5> Z p -2 £_ 


r^ 


1 






"^ 


, w 


«5 


5 


C 


§ < i 1 3 


- ^- 


5 ac !2 tj 'J 


b 


< 






"S 


\ 


,3 


h 




^^ 


2 


.5 


^ 


5 








% 




■ — 


















City and County of £an Francisco 

Meeting Minutes 

Finance and Labor Committee 

Members: Supervisors Leland Yee, Sue Merman, Tom Ammiano 
Clerk: Mary Red 



City Hall 

1 Dr. Carlton B. 

Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, CA 

94102-4689 



Wednesday, March 22, 2000 



10:00 AM 
Regular Meeting 



City Hall, Room 263 



Members Present: Leland Y. Yee, Tom Ammiano. 
Members Absent: Sue Bierman. 



Meeting Convened 

The meeting convened at 10:04 a.m. 

REGULAR AGENDA 



DOCUMENTS DEPT 

MAR 2 7 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



000235 |Approving the concession leases of Travelex America, Inc. to operate two (2) ATM facilities at the 
Airport, at a minimum annual rent for the first year of $240,500 for each lease] 

Resolution approving two Automated Teller Machine Leases for the existing and New International Terminal 

Buildings between Travelex America, Inc. and the City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through its 

Airport Commission. (Airport Commission) 

2/4/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

3/1/00, CONTINUED. Continued to March 8, 2000. 

3/8/00, CONTINUED. Continued to March 22, 2000. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst: Jon Ballesteros, Airport. 

CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



000236 [Approving the concession lease of Travelex America, Inc. to operate a foreign currency exchange office 
at the Airport, at a minimum annual rent for the first year of 54,127,500] 

Resolution approving the Foreign Currency Exchange Lease in the Existing and New International Terminal 

Buildings between Travelex America, Inc. and the City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through its 

Airport Commission. (Airport Commission) 

2/4/00, RECEIVED AND ASSK INED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

3/1/00, CONTINUED. Continued to March 8, 2000. 

3/8/00, CONTINUED. Continued to March 22, 2000. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst. Jon Ballesteros, Airport. 

RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 






City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 9:<0 AM on .? 7) 00 



Finance an J Labor Commlttt 



Meeting Minute 



Man h 22, 2000 



000318 (Approving award of New International Terminal Fine Dining Restaurant Lease to (;(^( Holdings. Ine. 
at a ■ i ■■ 1 1 1 1 1 1 u i ■ i annual rent of SI 34.300 for the first year| 

Resolution approving New International Terminal line Dining Restaurant I. ease to < iO< Holdings, Inc., a 
certified disadvantaged business enterprise, and the City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through 
its Airport Commission. (Airport Commission i 
2/16/00, RECEIVI DAND ASSIGN! Dtol rnanceand l iter Committee 
3/8/00, C( )N I INI IED Continued to March 22, 2000. 

Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Jon Ballesteros, Supervisor Ammiano, 

Supervisor Yee 

RECOMM1 NDEDby the following Note: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



000379 (Implementing the provisions ol MOl between MI V and Superior Court for the period 10/1/99 

through 9/30/01] 

Ordinance implementing the pro\ isions of the Memorandum of I nderstanding between the Superior Court of 

California, County of San Francisco and the Municipal Executives Association (Superior Courts) 

0. RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to I inance and I abor Committee 
Heard in committee Speakers Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst, Gordon Park-Li, Assistant CEO. Superior 
Court: Supervisor Yee Amended to provide salary rale UU I 
tMENDI n 

Ordinance implementing retroactive to October 1. 1999, the provisions of the Memorandum of I nderstanding 
between the Superior Court of California, Count) of San I rancisco and the Municipal Executives Association. 
(Superior Courts) 
RECOMMENDED \s Oil MUD by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



000380 (Establishing rates of pay and other economic benefits for va ri ou s unrepresented classes in the Superior 
Court effective 10/1/99 through 9/30/00| 

Ordinance selling the rates of compensation and other economic benefits for certain management 
classifications of persons employed by the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco. (Superior 
Courts) 

••>. RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED lo Finance and Labor Committee 
Heard in committee Speakers Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst. Gordon Park-Li. Assistant CEO. Superior 
Court; Supervisor Yee Amended to provide salary rati five to October 1 , 1999. 

IMENDED. 

Ordinance setting retroactive to October 1, 1999, the rates of compensation and other economic benefits for 
certain management classifications of persons employed by the Superior Court of California. County of San 
Francisco. (Superior Courts) 
RECOMMENDED \S VMENDEDb) the following sote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



Cify and County of San Francisco 



Primed at 9:51 .0/ on 1 73 0(1 



Finance and Labor Committee Meeting Minutes March 22, 2000 



000381 [Salary rate change for Pro Tem Commissioner in the Superior Court] 

Ordinance setting the rate of compensation for Superior Court Classification 0256 (Pro Tem Commissioner) 

employed on an "as needed" basis by the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco. (Superior 

Courts) 

2/28/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Gordon Park-Li, Assistant CEO, Superior 

Court; Supervisor Yee. 

RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



SPECIAL ORDER - 11:00 A.M. 



000413 [Quality of Life - 24th Street and Mission corridor] 
Supervisor Ammiano 

Hearing to examine the quality of life and economic development of the 24th Street and Mission corridor 
which spans from 1 8th Street to Cesar Chavez and from Potrero to Guerrero Streets. 
3/6/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Supervisor Ammiano; Tony Hester, Mission Agenda; Ted Lakey, Deputy Cm 
Attorney; Betty Trainer, North of Mission Neighborhood Association; Luis Pardo, Friends of Urban Forest; 
Tom Radulovich, Director. Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BARTD); Debra Johnson. Government and 
Community Relations, BARTD; Dan Ritz, Mission Economic Development Association (MEDA); Steven Liu. 
Chinese Merchants Association; Troy Otomoto, Public Health Department; Henry Diaz, Department of Public 
Works; Kate Duram, Human Sendees Department; Joe LaTorre. Mayor's Office of Housing; Lisa Pagon, 
Project Manager, Mission Housing; Philip Dochow; Maria Poblet, Mission SRO Collorative; Chris Daly. 
Mission Agenda; Oscar Grande. PODER; Eric Quezada; Cesar Peralta; Andrew Wood. ODC Theater; Dr. 
Norma Tecson, Executive Director, Filipino American Council; Carla Wilson; Sergio Canjura; Lizette 
Hernandez, MEDA; Kathy Phillips, St. Johns Education Thresholds Center; Jonathan Youtt, Cellspace; 
Commandar William Travis Gibson, BARTD Police. 
CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



ADJOURNMENT 

The meeting adjourned at 12:40 p.m. 



City and County of San Francisco 3 Printed at 9: 5/ AM on .'.''"» 



ft). 25*/ 



or 



Susan Horn 

Government Documents Section 

Main Library 



CITY AND COUNTY 




/a/ OF SAN FRANCISCO 



^OARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 
FAX (415) 252-0461 



March 16, 1999 



DOCUMENTS DEP" 



TO: ^Finance and Labor Committee 

FROM: ^Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: JVIarch 22, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



MAR 2 






SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Item 1 - File 00-0235 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance and Labor Committee at its meeting 
of March 8, 2000. 



Department: 
Item: 



Location: 



Purpose of Leases: 



Airport 

Resolution approving two new automated teller 
machine leases for the new International Terminal 
between Travelex America, Inc. and the City and 
County of San Francisco, acting by and through its 
Airport Commission. 

New International Terminal Complex of the 
Airport. 

The proposed two new leases would provide space 
in the new International Terminal for 20 to 22 
automated teller machines (ATM), at ten different 
locations. Travelex America, Inc. would install and 
operate the proposed ATMs. Travelex America, Inc. 
is required to install at least two ATMs at each of 
the ten locations, and has the option to install a 
third ATM at two of the ten locations, resulting in a 
maximum of 22 ATMs. The Airport issued two 
separate leases to operate ATMs in order to provide 
lease opportunities to as many companies as 
possible, however, Travelex America, Inc. was the 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 22, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Lessor: 



Lessee: 



only company to submit bids for the two subject 
leases (See below "Description" section). 

City and County of San Francisco, acting by and 
through its Airport Commission. 

Travelex America, Inc., a Delaware Corporation 



Monthly Rental Revenues 
Payable by Travelex America, Inc. 
to the Airport: 



Annual Rental 
Revenues Payable by 
Travelex America, Inc. 
to the Airport: 



$20,125 monthly for each lease, for a total of 
$40,250 per month for both leases ($241,500 
annually per lease, or $483,000 annually for both 
leases.) 



Beginning from the first year of the lease, and 
through the duration of the five-year lease period, 
the base annual rent payable by Travelex America, 
Inc. to the Airport includes the Minimum Annual 
Guarantee of $241,500 for each lease, for a total of 
$483,000 per year, subject to Consumer Price Index 
(CPI) annual adjustments. The $483,000 total 
Minimum Annual Guarantee for both leases 
applies to the ten proposed ATM locations, 
regardless of whether Travelex installs 20 or 22 
ATMs. In addition to the Minimum Annual 
Guarantee of $241,500 for each lease, Travelex 
America, Inc. would pay to the Airport Percentage 
Rent and Transaction Rent, defined as follows: 



"Percentage Rent" means rent paid in addition to 
and without set off against the [Minimum 
Annual Guarantee], in an amount equal to 
thirty-three percent (33%) of any Transaction 
Surcharge and/or changes for Optional Uses 
[defined as shown in Attachment I to this report] 
approved by Director and charged to ATM 
Customers who use the ATMs on the Premises. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 22, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



"Transaction Rent" means rent paid in addition 
to and without set off against the [Minimum 
Annual Guarantee], in an amount equal to ten 
cents ($0.10) for each Customer Use of Tenant's 
ATM on the Premises except that Transaction 
Rent shall not be payable with respect to 1) ATM 
Customer Use as to which Percentage Rent is 
payable, and 2) ATM Customer Use for which no 
transaction is completed due to reject of a 
customer's card or aborting by the customer of 
the ATM Customer Use prior to concluding any 
transaction. 

According to Mr. Bob Rhoades of the Airport, the 
Airport has not projected future revenues to be paid 
by Travelex to the Airport, in addition to the 
Minimum Annual Guarantee of $241,500 for each 
lease, based on anticipated Percentage and 
Transaction Rent payments. Mr. Rhoades advises 
that estimating demand for the new ATMs and 
related surcharge revenues is difficult since the 
ATMs will be located in a new building, for which 
there is no historical data for making such 
forecasts. 

However, according to Mr. Rhoades, Travelex 
stated in its bid to the Airport that it plans to 
request permission from the Airport Director to 
impose a transaction surcharge on all ATM 
customers, as stated in Attachment II, provided by 
the Airport. Under the terms of the lease, Travelex 
may not charge a transaction surcharge of more 
than $1.50 per customer use, and Travelex would 
pay the Airport 33 percent of those surcharges. 
Under the terms of the lease, Travelex America, 
Inc. must have written approval from the Airport 
Director to impose a transaction surcharge, as 
stated in the lease as follows: 

Tenant shall not charge Transaction 
Surcharges except as approved by Director 

[emphasis added]. The Maximum amount of any 
such Transaction Surcharge that may be 
approved shall be S1.50 per Customer Use. The 
amount of any such Transaction Surcharge and 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

3 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 22, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



a clear description of the customers to which it 
applies must be posted in a clearly visible 
manner on the exterior of the ATM unit, or stated 
clearly through the ATMs electronic display 
requesting the Customer if they agree to continue 
the transaction with a Transaction Surcharge 
before the Customer Use is 

completed... Transaction Surcharges shall be 
subject to Percentage Rent as described in the 
lease. 

Attachment II also contains: (a) the companies that 
currently hold leases with the Airport for ATMs in 
the Airport, (b) the annual Minimum Annual 
Guarantees paid by each of these companies to the 
Airport for the ATMs, and (c) the total combined 
surcharge revenues of $315,192 paid to the Airport 
by these companies for the ATM leases during 
1999. 



Term of Lease: 



Right of Renewal: 



Utilities and Janitorial 
Provided by Lessor: 

Description: 



The two proposed leases would commence on 
September 26, 2000. Each lease would be for a five 
year period, terminating on September 25, 2005. 

The Airport would have sole discretion to grant two 
one-year extensions for each lease. 

The Lessee pays for the costs of all utilities and 
janitorial services. 

On August 17, 1999, the Airport Commission 
requested bids for two Automated Teller Machine 
Leases for the new International Terminal 
Building. Subsequently, on December 21, 1999, the 
Airport Commission adopted a resolution awarding 
the two leases to Travelex America. Inc.. the sole 
bidder (Resolution No. 99-0458). According to Mr. 
Rhoades, the sole bidder, Travelex America, Inc., 
submitted a Minimum Annual Guarantee bid of 
$241,500. Mr. Rhoades advises that the Airport 
issued Invitations to Bid for the two ATM leases to 
141 firms. Mr. Rhoades advises that the Airport 
decided to issue two separate leases, to operate 10 
to 11 ATMs each, in order to provide lease 
opportunities to as many companies as possible. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

4 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 22, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Tenant 
Improvements: 



Attachment II also explains why the Airport 
received only one bid to operate the ATMs at the 
Airport. 

Under the two proposed leases, Travelex America, 
Inc. would install and operate 20 to 22 ATMs, at 
ten different locations throughout the new 
International Terminal. The ATMs would operate 
24 hours a day, seven days a week. 

The Lessee would be required, at its sole cost, to 
design and construct the ATM enclosures, including 
all fixtures, furnishings and equipment necessary 
to Travelex America Inc.'s operations under the 
subject lease. Travelex America, Inc.'s costs for 
these improvements shall not be less than $5,000 
per ATM, or $100,000 to $110,000 for aU 20 to 22 
ATMs. This minimum of $5,000 does not include 
the cost of purchasing and installing the ATMs 
themselves. According to Mr. Rhoades, the Airport 
requires a minimum of $5,000 in improvements per 
ATM to ensure that Travelex America, Inc. 
constructs ATM enclosures consistent with the 
design, materials and quality of the new 
International Terminal. 



Comments: 



1. Mr. Rhoades anticipates that all 20 to 22 ATMs 
in the new International Terminal will be 
completed by August 15, 2000. Mr. Rhoades advises 
that the Airport's new International Terminal is 
now scheduled to open September 26, 2000, or 
three months later than the previously estimated 
opening date of June 26, 2000, in order to allow the 
Airport time to test the new facilities. 

2. Item 5, File 00-0236 of this report to the Finance 
and Labor Committee, pertains to another proposed 
Airport lease to Travelex America, Inc. to provide 
Foreign Currency Exchange facilities at various 
locations in the Airport. 

3. In November of 1999, the voters of San Francisco 
approved Proposition F to prohibit banks and other 
financial institutions from charging a fee to persons 
who do not have an account with that bank or 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

5 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 22, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

financial institution, for use of that bank or 
financial institution's automated teller machines in 
San Francisco. These fees are often in addition to 
fees charged to the customer by the customer's own 
bank. In response to passage of Proposition F, Bank 
of America, Wells Fargo and the California 
Bankers' Association sued the City, arguing that 
the City had no authority to restrict the fees that 
banks charge customers. In November of 1999, a 
U.S. District Court Judge granted a preliminary 
injunction preventing the City from enacting 
Proposition F. According to Mr. Marc Slavin of the 
City Attorney's Office, the City is currently 
appealing that injunction. Mr. Slavin advises that 
the City Attorney's Office has not yet formally 
determined whether Proposition Fs restriction on 
surcharge fees would apply to ATMs at the Airport. 

4. Mr. Slavin advises that the City Attorney's Office 
has not yet formally determined whether Travelex 
America, Inc. fits the definition of "bank or 
financial institution,'' as defined in Proposition F. 
However, if the City Attorney's Office determines 
that Travelex America, Inc. does fall within the 
purview of Proposition F and that Proposition F 
applies to ATMs at the Airport, and if Proposition F 
is upheld in the courts, then Travelex America, Inc. 
would be prohibited from charging the proposed 
surcharge of up to $1.50. 

As previously reported, the Airport has not 
estimated the amount of revenues that would be 
generated by such proposed surcharges. However, 
in accordance with the proposed lease provisions, 
the Airport would' receive 33 percent of these 
surcharge revenues from Travelex America, Inc. 

5. The Budget Analyst notes that under the 
proposed leases, the Airport Director would have 
the authority to approve such transaction 
surcharges of up to SI. 50 per customer use. Given 
the recent approval of Proposition F by the San 
Francisco voters, the current legal status of this 
issue, and the potential for Travelex America, Inc. 
to be affected by this Proposition, the Budget 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

6 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 22, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Analyst considers approval of the proposed 
resolution to be a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 



Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy 

matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

7 



Attach ment: I 
Page 1 ot 3 



EXHIBIT B 
USE AND OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS 



1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS : Ail ATM Services shall be provided on a non- 
exclusive basis, and Airport reserves the right to sell and to permit other Airport tenants to 
provide such services. Tenant may not offer any services not described below as being 
"Required" or '"Optional", without Director's prior consent. 

2. REQUIRED/OPTIONAL SERVICES : In the event Director permits any service to be 
sold or offered that is not listed beiow. or otherwise permits any other change in the 
Permitted Use. this Exhibit shall be deemed amended without need for a formal 
amendment of this L_ease. Tenant shall be required to operate the Premises in accordance 
wuh the requirements, and offer the service, as described below: 

A. Required Uses: 

Tenant shall provide the following services, on a non-exclusive basis: 

1 . Dispense United States currency. 

2. Provide access to network support form no less than four of the following 
networks: Plus. Star. Cirrus. Global.Access and Interlink and accept no less than 
four of the following credit cards: American Express. Diner's Club. MasterCai 
Visa, Discover "Novus Card. 

3 . Provide a written receipt of each transaction. 

4. Provide display functions on user operation. 

5. Display transaction fee. surcharge information. 

B. Optional Uses: 

Tenant may provide, on a non-exclusive basis, the following "Optional Use. as 
approved in writing by the Director. .Any "Optional Use" for which Tenant receives or 
charges a commission, surcharge or other fee shajl be subject to payment of 
percentage rent as described in Section 4 of the Lease. 

1 . Provide access to financial networks .. ather than those requ.- 
under Exhibit B 2.A.2. hereto. 

2. Dispense traveler's c'r - 

3. Dispense United States postage s; alue. 

4. Provide tickets for San Franc-.scc regional area cultural, performing an 
sporting events. 

5 Dispense airline tickets 

Exhibit 3 - Pace I 



Attachment I 
Page 2 of 3 

6. Display animated software graphics 

7. Accept deposits to accounts. 

8. Handle debit card transactions. 

9. Other services consistent with the operations of ATMs that can be demons, jtea to 
benefit customers and the traveling public, if and as approved bv the Airport 
Director. 

3. PROHIBITED USES/SERVICE 

Tenant understands and agrees that the following products or services are not included 
within the Permitted Use, without the prior written consent of Director, which consent mav be 
granted or denied in Director's absolute and sole discretion. 

1 . .Any and all sales of phone cards 

2. Dispense or exchange foreign currency 

3. Offer gambling of any kind 

4. Display advertising, except that electronic display of Tenant's services during 
"wait" times while transactions are processing shall not be deemed to be 
advertising prohibited hereunder 

5. Sell any type of merchandise 

4. OPERATIONS 

A. Hours of Operations 

Each ATM shall operate twenty-four (24) hours a day. seven (7) days a week including 
holidays. 

B. Maintenance and Operation of Units 

ATMs must be capable of handling, via telephone link, access to accounts for transactions 
including withdrawals, deposits and charges against credit lines. Without limiting the 
generality of Section 3.11 [Compliance with Laws]. Tenant shall cause the operation of 
ATMs to be in compliance with all Governmental. Banking and FAA Regulations, including 
security requirements and Airport Rules and Regulations. Tenant shall be responsible for the 
secure transport of cash and receipts to and from each specific ATM location. Pursuant to 
FAA Regulations, no arms are permitted beyond the security checkpoints. Airport police shall 
not be responsible for escorting ATM service personnel. 

The ATMs and each location will be kept in clean, dust free, neat and First-class business-like 
and orderly condition at all times. The ATMs will be serviced and monitored in a manner l 
ensures the continual and uninterrupted operation of each unit. The Airport Director mav 
require more frequent servicing and stocking upon written notice to Tenant. Faiiure to 
maintain and service units according to the aforesaid standard will result in the impositior 

Exhibu E - Pace 2 



Attachment I 
Pape 3 of 3 

progressively stnngent fines, as provided in Secuon 15.S hereto. Emergency service response 
should be available within ninety (90) minutes of notice. Except for emergency resDonse, 
servicing of the ATM units must be done during off-peak hours of 2:30 p.m. through 5:30 
p.m. and 8:30 p.m. through 5:30 a.m. or other hours as may be designated in writing from 
time to time by Director. 

C. Informational Displays 

Tenant shall provide and display at each ATM unit all written directions necessary to instruc: 
customers in the operation of the ATM. Tenant shall aiso provide, either through the ATM's 
electronic display or affixed to the ATM, information for the obtaining machine services 
and/or refunds. Tenant shall not place or install any racks, stands or other displav on any 
Airport property outside the Premises. 

D. Transaction Surcharges 

Tenant shall not charge Transaction Surcharges except as approved in writing by Director. 
The Maximum amount of any such Transaction Surcharge that may be approved shall be 
SI .50 per Customer Use. The amount of any such Transaction Surcharge and a clear 
description of the customers to which it applies must be posted in a clearly visible manner on 
the exterior of the ATM unit, or stated clearly through the ATM's electronic display 
requesting the Customer if they agree to continue the transaction with a Transaction 
Surcharge before the Customer Use is completed. Any Transaction Surcharges charged bv 
Tenant must be consistent throughout the Airport and cannot exceed charges at other locations 
in Tenant's system. Transaction Surcharges shall be subject to Percentage Rent as described 
in the Lease. 

E. Management 

Tenant shall select and appoint a full-time experienced manager fully authorized to represerv. 
and act on behalf of Tenant providing an emergency contact number on a twenty-four 
hour basis. 

Tenant shall not staff the ATM locations, conduct other business, provide other services or 
sell any type of merchandise No brochures or advertising will be displayed without prior 
written approval from the Airport Director 

The provisions set fourth in this Exhibit B snail be in addition to and not in iimitanon : 
other provisions in the Lease. 



B - Pa-.-; 



Attachment II 
Pase 1 of 2 



AIRPOUT 

COMMISSION 

CITY AND COUNTY 

OF 5AN FRANCISCO 

WILLIE L. BROWN. JO 
AUTO* 

HENRY E.3ERMAN 

LARRY MAJZOLA 
I//C£ PnSSlOCNT 

MICHAEL S. STAUNSlCY 

LINOA S. CBAYTON 



JOHN L.MARTIN 
HMrOKT SIHICTOH 



San Francisco International Airport 



P.O. Box 8097 

San Francisco. CA Mi: 

Te! 6S0. 794. 5000 

rax ciU./S*. 5005 

wwwilysfo.com 



AIRPORT COMMISSION 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



MEMORANDUM 



TOi Emiiie Neumann 

Budget Analyst's Office 



DATE: February 24, 2000 



FROM: Jon Ballesteros 

SUBJECT: File #000235 - Airport ATM Services Lease 

Below please find the background information you requested regarding the Resolution 
befqre the Board of Supervisors approving the Airport's Lease for ATM Services. 

I 

SURCHARGES 

I 

Trayelex America, Lnc. plans to charge a surcharge as permitted in Exhibit B. The amount 
of the surcharge will not exceed SI. 50. 

The; Airport will receive 33% of any surcharge Travelex charges. 

CURRENT ATM LEASE AGREEMENTS 

Bank of America currently has two Leases with ATM Machines: Lease L86-0039 has two 
bank branches and eight ATM machines and a MAG of 5214,160 (plus additional surcharge 
and' transaction rents) and Lease L97-0039 has six ATM rnachines and a MAG of SI 07,45 1 
(plus additional surcharge and transaction rents). 

Wejas Fargo Bank Lease 97-0293 has 10 ATM machines and a M\G of SI 87,472 (plus 
additional surcharge and transaction rents). 

The total amount of transaction fee and surcharge revenues generated by the leases in 
calendar year 1999 equaled 5315,191 



Attachment II 
Pape l or 2 



Ernilic Neumann; 
February 24, 2000 
Page 2 



ESTIMATED ANNUAL RENTAL REVENUES 

Travelex America, Inc. was the sole responsive bidder, and Travelex .America, Inc. will execute 
both Leases, wita the bid amount of 5241,500 which will be the minimum annual guarantee for 
each Lease for the first year. Travelex America, Inc. will pay the MAG for each Lease plus, 
additional surcharge and transaction rents. 

There are no estimated forecasts for revenues generated from transaction fees at this time as 
these fees are based on user volume. Due to the fact that the ATM machines will be located in a 
building that did'not exist previously, there is no historical data on which to make such forecasts. 



BIDDING PROCESS 

i 

The Airport offered Invitations to Bid for the ATM services lease to 158 firms. Staff received 
one bid from Travelex America, Inc. for S24 1,500. 

! 

Bank of America and Wells Fargo Bank were invited to bid on these leases. However, both 
companies citediissues with the rent structure, the SI 80,000 Minimum Bid, and the outcome of 
legal activity surrounding Proposition "F\ the initiative that would prohibit ATM surcharges in 
San Francisco. 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 22, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 2 - File 00-0236 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance and Labor Committee at its meeting 
of March 8, 2000. 



Department: 
Item: 



Airport 

Resolution approving a new foreign currency 
exchange lease at the Airport between Travelex 
America, Inc. and the City and County of San 
Francisco, acting by and through its Airport 
Commission. 



Location: 



Purpose of Lease: 



Lessor: 



Eleven different locations at the Airport, as 
identified in Attachment I, provided by the Airport. 

The proposed lease would provide approximately 
1,229 square feet of space to operate foreign 
currency exchanges in 11 locations at the Airport, 
as identified in Attachment I, provided by the 
Airport. 

City and County of San Francisco, acting by and 
through its Airport Commission. 



Lessee: 



Travelex America, Inc., a Delaware Corporation 



No. of Sq. Ft. and 
Monthly Rental Revenues 
Payable by Travelex America 
to the Airport: 



The proposed lease would include approximately a 
total of 1,229 square feet to operate ten foreign 
currency exchange facilities and one office for 
administration, as' explained in Attachment I, 
provided by the Airport. The total rental revenues 
to be paid by Travelex America to the Airport 
would be approximately $280 per square foot per 
month, or $343,958 per month ($4,127,500 
annually). 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

13 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 22, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Annual Rental 
Revenues Payable by 
Travelex America 
to the Airport: 



Term of Lease: 



Right of Renewal: 

Utilities and Janitorial 
Provided by Lessor: 



Description: 



Beginning from the first year of the lease, and 
through the duration of the five-year lease period, 
the base annual rent payable by Travelex America 
to the Airport will be the greater of the Minimum 
Annual Guarantee (MAG) of $4,127,500, subject to 
Consumer Price Index (CPI) annual adjustments, 
or a passenger-based fee equal to eighty -eight cents 
($0.88) multiplied by the total number of 
enplanements (the total number of passengers 
boarding airline carriers for international flights). 

Attachment II, provided by the Airport, shows: (a) 
the total estimated annual rental revenues from 
the eleven foreign currency exchange locations to 
be paid by Travelex America to the Airport 
annually, and (b) the total estimated revenues of 
$22,355,871 to be paid to the Airport over the five 
year lease term. As shown in Attachment II, these 
estimates are based on the Minimum Annual 
Guarantee and are adjusted upward using 
projected increases in the Consumer Price Index 
(CPI). Attachment II also lists the two firms 
currently holding leases for foreign currency- 
exchange locations at the Airport and the 
Minimum Annual Guarantee paid by each lessee. 

The proposed lease would commence on September 
26, 2000. The lease would be for a five year period, 
terminating on September 25, 2005. 

The Airport would have sole discretion to grant two 
two-year extensions' for the lease. 

The Lessee pays for the costs of all utilities and 
janitorial services. 

On September 21, 1999, the Airport Commission 
requested bids for a lease to operate currency- 
exchange facilities at 11 different locations in the 
Airport, as identified in Attachment I. 
Subsequently, on December 21. 1999 the Airport 
Commission adopted a resolution awarding the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 22, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Tenant Improvements: 



lease to Travelex America, Inc, the highest 
responsive bidder (Resolution No. 99-0449). 
According to Mr. Bob Rhoades of the Airport, the 
Airport issued Invitations to Bid to 129 firms for 
the foreign currency exchanges at 11 locations in 
the Airport (See Attachment II). Attachment II also 
contains a list of all firms that submitted bids for 
this concession and the Minimum Annual 
Guarantees of each bidder. According to Mr. 
Rhoades, all firms submitting bids agreed to pay 
the greater of the Minimum Annual Guarantee of 
$4,127,500 or the $0.88 per passenger fee, as 
outlined in the proposed lease. However these firms 
were not required to include in their bids revenue 
projections based on this passenger fee. 

Travelex America would be required to invest a 
minimum of $184,200 in improvements to the 
subject lease space. This minimum investment 
amount of $184,200 is based on $200 a square foot 
for 921 square feet to be used for currency exchange 
facilities (out of the total 1,229 square feet covered 
by the subject lease). The minimum investment 
does not apply to the remaining 308 square feet 
designated for office space. According to Mr. 
Rhoades, these improvements include constructing 
the foreign currency exchange facilities, providing 
trade fixtures and hanging signs. Mr. Rhoades 
advises that the Airport requires a minimum of 
$200 a square foot in improvements to ensure that 
Travelex America constructs currency exchange 
facilities consistent with the design, materials and 
quality of existing Domestic Terminals and the new 
International Terminal. 



Comments: 



1. Mr. Rhoades anticipates that all 11 foreign 
currency exchange facilities will be completed by 
August 15, 2000. Mr. Rhoades advises that the 
Airport's new International Terminal is now 
scheduled to open September 26, 2000, or three 
months later than the previously estimated 
opening date of June 26, 2000, in order to allow the 
Airport time to test the new facilities. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 22, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

2. Item No. 4, File 00-0235 of this report to the 
Finance and Labor Committee, pertains to two 
additional proposed Airport leases to Travelex 
America to provide automated teller machines 
(ATMs) in the Airport's new International 
Terminal. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment I 



EXHIBIT A 
PREMISES 




wmmgmi^^^ 






TERMINAL 



New International Terminal 
Pre-Security 



New International Terminal 
Pre-Security 



New International Terminal 

Pre-Security 

& Office space 



New International Terminal 
Boarding Area A 
Post-Security 



LOCATION 



I.3.003F- Great Hall North ticket island facing north 
across from food court. 
Approximately 69 square foot area. 



I.3.014E- Great Hall South ticket island facing south 
across from food court. 
Approximately 67 square foot area. 



I.3.084D- North Shoulder Building next to restrooms, 

hair salon and Discretionary Store. 

Approximately 150 square foot area. 

I3.084.E- Office space located behind foreign currency 

retail space I3.084D. Approximately 308 square foot 

area. 



A.3.023- Mid-Terminal next to food cluster across from 

phones. 

Approximately 138 square foot area. 



New International Terminal 
Boarding Area G 
Two Locations 
Post-Security 



(1) G.3.004K- Next to large duty free shop and 
restaurant/bar before people mover. 
Approximately 2J_3 square foot area. 

(2) Ojie (1) Mobile Cart Location. * 

(not shown) 



New International Terminal 

Arrivals 

Post-Secuntv 



I.2.024B- Southwest lobby area, behind Lodging 
Transportation and Attraction board across from 
escalators to Great Hall approximately 134 square foot 
area. Space for one .\utomated Foreign Currency 
Exchange Machine at this location 



New International Terminal 
Arrivals 



I.2.007C- Northwest lobby area, behind Lodging 
Transportation and Attraction board across from 
escalators to Great Hall approximately 150 square foot 
area. Space for one Automated Foreign Currency 
Exchange Machine at this location. 



Domestic Terminals 



Approximately Two (2) Mobile Cart Locations. * 
(not shown) 



( See attached drawinus ) 

TOTAL: 10 Locations (Approximately 921 sq. ft.) and 1 Office (Approximately 

• * All mobile cart locations shall be as designated by the Airport from time to time 



Exhibit A - Pai>e 



Attachment II 
Pape 1 ot 3 



San Francisco International Airpon 



iu»«nno« 
CITY AND COUNTY 
Of SAN fRANCISCO 

WUUt I KOWX. J*. 
MATO* 

HINRT i liRMAN 

IAAAY MAZZOLA 
viCf 'flSIOtNT 

michah v rrmmuv 

LIMOA S. CRAVTON 
LAKTL MO 



JOHN L UARTIN 



P.O Sox 8097 

San Francisco. CA 94128 

Tel 6<0 794.5000 

Fix 650.794.5005 

www_ftysfo.com 



AIRPORT COMMISSION 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



MEMORANDUM 



TO- Emibc Neumann 

Budget Analyst's Office 

Jon Ballesteros 



DATE: February 24, 2000 



FR<j)M: 

SUBJECT: File #000236 - Airport Foreign Currency Exchange Lease 

Bekiw please find the background information you requested regarding the Resolution 
before the Board of Supervisors approving the Airport's Foreign Currency Lease. 

REVENUE ESTIMATES 

The .Foreign Currency Exchange rent terms are the greater of the Minimum Annual 
Guarantee or the Passenger-Based Fee. The first year MAG for Travclex America, Inc. 
is $4,127,500. The Passenger-Based is equal to S0.88 multiplied by total number of 
International Passengers Enplaned on International flights per year. 

I Below are the projected Iniemarional Passengers Enplaned and projected annual 
fees for the next five years and the total projected Passenger Based Fee 
Revenue: 



Year j Projected Enplaned [ X $0.88 
I Passengers In Millions i Fee 


Projected Annual 
Passenger-Based Fees 


2001 3.7 S3.256.0O0 


2002 | 4.0 


1 S3.520.000 


2003 I 4.3 




53.784,000 


2004 | 4.7 




S4. 136.000 


2005 1 5.0 




$4,400,000 


TOTAL PROJECTED FEE REVENUE i SI 9.096.000 



IX 



Attachment II 
Fage Z ot 3 



Emilie Neumanr 
February 24, 
Page 2 



20(0 



Below are the projected annual MAG rents with CPI adjustments and the total Revenue from 
projected MAG rents: 



Year j 
Adjusted 


Current 
MAG 


Projected 
CPI 


Projected 

Adjustment 


Projected New MAG 
after CPI adjustment 


2001 i 


$4,127,500 


4.0% 


$165,100 


$4,292,600 


2002 1 


$4,292,600 


4.0% 


$171,704 


S4.464.304 


2003 I 


$4,464,304 


4.0% 


$178,572 


$4,642,876 


2004 ; 


$4,628,876 


4.0% 


$185,715 


$4,828,591 


TOTAL PROJECTED MAG REVENUE 


$22,355,871 



Due to the initial MAG offering of $4,127,500 and subsequent annual CPI adjustments 
the Passenger-Based Fee is not expected to become greater than the current MAG. 



CURRENT FOREIGN CURRENCY EXCHANGE LEASES 

j 

There are two companies that currently hold leases with the Airport for currency exchange: Bank of 
America and Teletrip. 

Bank of America Lease L86-0039 from 1987 is currently month to month with two foreign currency 
locations in the International Terminal (one branch pre-security and a satellite office post security in 
departures) and a MAG of $214,160. 

Teletrip Lease L93-0060 from 1993 is currently month to month with five locations (three in the 
International Teiminal, one office prc-security, one satellite in arrivals, one cart post security and 
two carts locatec in the North Terminal with a current MAG of $856,622. 

In 1993, Travelex partnered with Mutual of Omaha Insurance to take over management of the 
Foreign Currency branches in the U.S. (The Airport foreign currency division of Mutual of 
Omaha is known as "Tele-Trip"). In 1999 Travelex purchased Tele-Trip, Travelex will continue 
to manage the current leases signed under Tele-Trip until the leases have expired. 

It is anticipated that both leases will terminate with the closing of the existing International Terminal 
on September 25, 2000. 



Attachment II 
Page 3 of 3 



Emilie Neumann 
February 24, 20QO 
Page 3 



BIDDING PROfCESS 

The Airport offered Invitations to Bid for the currency exchange facility lease to 129 firms. 
The following companies that submitted bids for this concession: 

• American Express tendered a non-responsive bid of SI, 000,000. 

• ICE Currency Services USA tendered a bid of 53,251,878. 

• Travelex Amfcrica Inc. tendered the highest apparent responsive bid of S4, 127,500. 



20 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 22, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 3 -File 00-0318 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance and Labor Committee at its meeting 
of March 8, 2000. 

Department: Airport 

Item: Resolution approving the New International Fine Dining 

Restaurant Lease between GQC Holdings, Inc., a certified 
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise, and the City and 
County of San Francisco, acting by and through its Airport 
Commission. 

Location: New International Terminal of the Airport 

Purpose of Lease: The proposed lease would provide approximately 6,715 
square feet of space to operate one fine dining restaurant at 
one location. 

Lessor: City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through 

its Airport Commission. 

Lessee: GQC Holdings, a California corporation 

No. ofSq. Ft. and 

Monthly Rental Revenues 

Payable by GQC Holdings 

to the Airport: Approximately 6,715 square feet to operate a restaurant at 

one location in the Airport's New International Terminal. 
The total rental revenues to be paid by GQC Holdings, Inc. 
to the Airport based on the Minimum Annual Guarantee 
would be approximately $1.67 per square foot per month, or 
$11,192 per month ($134,300 annually). According to Mr. 
Bob Rhoades of the Airport, the Minimum Annual 
Guarantee of $1.67 per square foot per month is less than 
the rent per square foot of other concession leases, due to 
the high costs of operating a fine dining restaurant and the 
large number of square feet (6,715) covered by the subject 
lease. 

Annual Rental Revenues 

Payable by GQC Holdings 

to the Airport: The proposed lease would require GQC Holdings, Inc. to 

pay to the Airport the greater of a Minimum Annual 
Guarantee (MAG) of $134,300 for each year of the ten year 
and four month lease term, or a percentage of gross 
revenues realized by GQC Holdings. According to the lease, 
the annual percentage of gross revenues is 4% for the first 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

21 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Term of Lease: 



$1,000,000 and 6% for all gross revenues in excess of 
$1,000,000. The subject lease also provides for annual 
increases in the Minimum Annual Guarantee based on 
increases in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). 

According to Mr. Rhoades, the Airport estimates that for 
the first year of the proposed lease, the percentage of gross 
revenues realized by CQG Holdings, as detailed above, will 
exceed the Minimum Annual Guarantee of $134,300 by 
$109,700. The Airport would thus receive for the first year 
of the lease an estimated percentage rent of $244,000 based 
on GQC Holdings' estimated annual gross receipts of 
$4,400,000. 

According to Mr. Rhoades, the Airport established the 
amount of the Minimum Annual Guarantee and the 
percent of gross revenues to be paid to the Airport for the 
fine dining lease, and that all firms submitting proposals 
were required to meet those conditions. Mr. Rhoades 
advises that the Minimum Annual Guarantee of $134,300 
and the percent gross revenues of 4% for the first 
$1,000,000 and 6% for all gross revenues in excess of 
$1,000,000 therefore applied to all firms that submitted 
proposals to the Airport for the fine dining lease. According 
to Mr. Rhoades, the firms submitting proposals were not 
required to submit gross revenue projections. 

The proposed lease would commence on September 26, 
2000. The lease would be for a ten year, four month period, 
terminating on January 25, 2011. 



Right of Renewal: None 

Utilities and Janitor 

Provided by Lessor: The Lessee pays for the costs of all utilities and janitorial 



Description: On September 21, 1999, the Airport Commission adopted a 

resolution awarding the New International Terminal Fine 
Dining Restaurant Lease to GQC Holdings, Inc. (Resolution 
No. 99-0465). The fine dining lease was one of 16 leases the 
Airport awarded to San Francisco and Bay Area firms to 
operate food and beverage facilities in the new 
International Terminal. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

22 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

According to Mr. Rhoades, in 1998 the Airport selected the 
firm Pacific Gateway Partnership, through a formal 
Request for Qualifications/Proposals process, to conduct an 
outreach program for selecting food and beverage 
operations. As outlined in Attachment I, provided by Mr. 
Rhoades, Pacific Gateway Partnership sent invitations to 
participate to more than 600 interested parties in February 
of 1999. After a process of narrowing down the pool of 
applicants, as described in Attachment I, in September of 
1999, an Airport-approved committee chose 16 firms for 
food and beverage leases in the new International 
Terminal. According to Mr. Rhoades, each firm was 
required to: (1) ^ave owned/managed food and beverage 
businesses for at least 3 of the last 5 years, and (2) 
guarantee annual gross revenues of at least $1,000,000. 
Mr. Rhoades advises that the selection committee also 
based their decision on the quality and look of each food 
and beverage company, requiring detailed proposals from 
applicants and making site visits to evaluate food, service, 
kitchens, and general environment. 

Attachment I, provided by the Airport, outlines the process 
for choosing both the selection committee and the firms to 
be awarded food and beverage leases. According to Mr. 
Rhoades, two firms in addition to GQC Holdings submitted 
full proposals for the fine dining lease, Chevy's Restaurant 
and California Grill. Attachment I explains why the 
committee chose GQC Holdings for the fine dining lease. 
Attachment II lists the members of the selection committee. 

Under the terms of the subject lease, GQC Holdings will 
operate a high-quality restaurant, serving quality food and 
beverages and including a full bar. According to Mr. 
Rhoades, this is the first time the Airport has offered a 
lease for high-end fine dining. 

Tenant 

Improvements: GQC Holdings would be required to invest a minimum of 

$250 per square foot in improvements to the subject lease 
space, or a total of $1,678,750 for the 6,715 square feet 
covered by the subject lease. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

23 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Comment: According to Mr. Rhoades, the restaurant will be completed 

by the scheduled opening date for the Airport's new 
International Terminal of September 26, 2000. Mr. 
Rhoades advises that the September 26, 2000 opening date, 
three months later than the previously estimated opening 
date of June 26, 2000, will allow the Airport time to test the 
new facilities. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

2k 



Attachment I 



NEW INTERNATIONAL TERMINAL COMPLEX 
FOOD AND BEVERAGE OPERATOR SELECTION PROCESS 



Mid - 1 998 Airport issued RFQ/RFP to select firm to conduct outreach 

program to identify food/beverage operators. 

Dec, 1998 After Airport panel review, Airport Commission approved 

selection of Pacific Gateway Partnership ("PGP') to conduct 
outreach. 

Jan. - Feb., 1999 Extensive outreach conducted by PGP, including meetings in 
San Francisco and on Peninsula. 

Feb. 1 999 Phase I of process involved the transmittal of over 600 

questionnaires to interested parties. 

March 1999 255 respondents to Phase I 

Mar. - April, 1999 Airport approved selection panel (attached) screened Phase I 
respondents, including site visits, and selected 110 
respondents as being qualified for Phase II. 

June, 1999 57 submissions were received under Phase II which were 

evaluated by selection panel. 

Sept. 1999 Airport Commission, based upon recommendation of 

Selection Panel and Review by the Airport Director, awarded 
food/beverage leases to 1 6 San Francisco and Bay Area 
firms, 1 5 of which are minority or woman-owned businesses 
(DBEs). The Fine Dining Lease was awarded to GQC 
Holding, Inc. 

GQC Holding, Inc. is a San Francisco based, minority-owned firm that has 
demonstrated exceptional ability to develop and operate fine dining facilities. 
Shanghai 1930 and Betelnut are two examples of the type of facilities that the firm 
operates in San Francisco. 



m:\rhoades\tbselecLdoc 



25 



, ACIFIC 
GATEWAY 

PARTNERSHIP 



■y Portrwship 



van rrcnciJCO An ecu C'-rnmusicn 



Box 30V/ 



Selection Committee Members 

Victor Escobedo has extensive experience as a restaurant manager and 
owner. He recently opened Papalote Mexican Griil in San Francisco, and 
his famiiy owns and operates the CeJIa's and Femando's Restaurants 
throughout the Bay Area. 

Michael Fang has been In the tourist photography business since 1981 
with the Red & White Reet, He is owner of Crabcakes & Sweets, a small 
fast-food seafood restaurant located at Pier 39. 

Grant Mlckjns served as Director of the San Francisco Human Rights 
Commission from 1975-88. Previousfy, he has been President of SETU, 
Local 400, Deputy Director of the Mayor's Criminal Justice Council, and 
President of the San Francisco Gvil Service Commission. Mr. Mickins 
currently serves as an Independent consultant. 

Patrick Quek is President and CEO of Hospitality Asset Advisors 
International and PKF Consulting. He is a recognized authority on the 
Asia/Pacific hotel market Mr. Quek is active in numerous civic and 
industry committees locally and nationally. 



•■;:' r ancisra CA 94123 



Cleopatra Vaughns, RN, is the Chairman of the Board of the San 
Francisco Convention & Visitors Bureau. She is the manager of Community 
ea intomcnonoi Airport Relations for Blue Shield of California. Ms. Vaughns is the National 

President of the National Association of Negro Business &. Professional 
Women's Clubs, Inc 

Alicia Wang is first vice-Chair of the California Democratic Party, a 
member of the Democratic National Committee, and a member of the 
Association of State Democratic Chairs. She is a faolty member at San 
Francisco City College. 

Robert Wllhelm is a recently retired executive of Westin Hotels and 
Resorts, whe'e he was Managing Director of the Westin St. Francis Hcte! 
on Union Square. He has been Chairman of the Eoard for the San 
Francisco Convention & Visitors Bureau and Director of the San Francisco 
Chamber of Commerce. He currently works with Lombard Holdings, Inc. 

John Yee is Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the San 
Francisco Giants. He played an integral roie in structuring the private 
financing for the new Pacific Beil Park. Previously, Mr. Yee served as Vice 
President or" Finance and Administration for the San Francisco Convention 
& Visitors Bureau. 



M«phore [650] 79d-45i7 



zcurr.ile [650| t-c-_: 



26 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 22, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Items 4 and 5 - Files 00-0379 and 00-0380 



Department: 



Item: 



Department of Human Resources (HRD) 
Superior Court 

Ordinances (a) implementing the provisions of the 
Memorandum of Understanding between the Superior 
Court and the Municipal Executives Association (File 00- 
0379) and (b) setting the rates of compensation and other 
economic benefits for certain management classifications of 
persons employed by the Superior (File 00-0380). 



Description: 



File 00-0379 The proposed ordinance would implement the 
provisions of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 
between the San Francisco Superior Court and the 
Municipal Executives Association (MEA) for a 24-month 
period, from October 1, 1999 through September 20, 2001. 
As such, the proposed ordinance should be amended to 
provide for retroactivity. 

The subject MOU covers 14 classifications, representing 51 
positions, as follows: 



Current No. of 
Classifications Positions 

0555 Chief Executive Officer 1 

0584 Assistant Executive Officer 1 

0585 Manager, Budget & Administration 1 
0588 Court Coordinator 19 
0590 Senior Court Assistant 3 
0620 Court Commissioner 11 
0622 Deputy Jury Commissioner 1 
0634 Manager, Court Operations 3 
0636 Division Chief 6 
0640 Director, Family Court Services 1 

0646 Director, Probate 1 

0647 Assistant Director, Probate 1 
0657 Mental Health Coordinator 1 
0677 Judicial Secretary Coordinator 1 

Total 51 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 22, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



The new fiscal provisions of the proposed MOU are 
summarized as follows: 

Wage Increases 

The above classifications, except 0620 Court Commissioner, 
would receive a 3.75 percent salary increase, retroactive to 
October 1, 1999. The parties have agreed to meet and 
confer prior to October 1, 2000, to set the wage increase for 
the second year of th^ MOU. The wage increase for October 
1, 2000, would be subject to separate legislative approval 
by the Board of Supervisors. 

Pav Bonus 

MEA employees, except 0620 Court Commissioner, who 
were employed by the Superior Court on October 1, 1999, 
would receive a one-time only bonus equal to 1 percent of 
wages, exclusive of overtime, bonus or specialty pay, earned 
between July 1, 1998 and June 30, 1999 for all 51 positions. 
According to Ms. Cheryl Martin of the Superior Court, the 
Superior Court has proposed the implementation of a pay- 
for-performance program but has not yet formulated a plan 
for such a program. Therefore. Ms. Martin states that the 
proposed 1 percent bonus is in lieu of a pay-for-performance 
program. Ms. Martin states that in the prior MOU, a 
similar provision provided a one-time bonus in FY 1998- 
1999 of 1.5 percent. 

The proposed 1 percent bonus differs from the City's pay- 
for-performance program for management classifications, in 
that the City s pay-for-performance program provides 
bonuses which range from negative one percent (which 
would adjust the subsequent year's wage increase 
downward) to 3 percent to selected covered employees, 
based on the employee's performance rating; whereas the 
Superior Court's proposed 1 percent bonus would be paid to 
all covered employees, regardless of performance. 

Health Care Benefits 

For the period from October 1. 1999 through September 30, 
2001. the Superior Court would contribute the greater of 
either (a) $245 per month or (b) the monthly rate paid for 
an employee who selects Kaiser coverage at the rate of the 
employee plus two dependents, toward the employee's 
participation in the Management Compensation Package. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 22, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



The Management Compensation Package includes 
dependent health care insurance, disability insurance, term 
life insurance and accident insurance. The proposed 
contribution is an increase of $20 per month per employee 
from the former contribution of $225 per month. 

Retirement Contribution 

For the period from October 1, 1999 through September 30, 

2001, the Superior Court would continue to pay the 

employees' share of retirement contributions to the 

Employees Retirement System (ERS) in the following 

percentages: 

8 percent of salary for ERS Tier 1 members (employees 
hired prior to November of 1976, and 
7.5 percent of salary for ERS Tier II members 
(employees hired after November of 1976). 

These contribution rates paid by the City are the same 
contribution rates paid in the prior MOU and any cost 
increases only result from the increased salary rates 
included in the MOU. 

File 00-0380 The proposed ordinance would set the rates 
of compensation and other economic benefits for certain 
unrepresented management classifications in the San 
Francisco Superior Court. According to Ms. Martin, the 
Superior Court provides to the unrepresented managers 
equivalent increases in salaries and benefits as received by 
those managers covered by the MOU with the MEA (File 
00-0379). The subject ordinance is for the following 16 
classifications, covering 26 positions. 

Current No. 

Classifications of Positions 

0210 Clerk Administrator 1 

0215 Bail Commissioner 1 

0220 Chief Deputy 2 

0221 Executive Assistant 1 

0222 Training Officer 1 
0225 Calendar Coordinator 1 
0230 Division Chief 3 
0240 Court Program Analyst Manager 1 
0242 Court Computer System Director 1 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 22, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Current No. 

Classifications of Positions 

0255 Court Commissioner 3 

0270 Assistant Division Chief 5 

0271 Drug Court Coordinator 2 
0275 Assistant Fiscal Officer 1 
0583 Assistant Clerk of the Court 1 
0595 Fiscal Systems & Services Coordinator 1 
0650 Traffic Hearing Officer 1 

Total 26 

The major fiscal provisions of the proposed ordinance would 
apply to all employee classifications, except classes 215 Bail 
Commissioner and 255 Court Commissioner. The subject 
classifications would receive the same 3.75 percent wage 
increase effective October 1, 1999, 1 percent pay bonus, 
health care benefits, and retirement contributions as the 
management employees covered by the proposed MOU with 
the MEA (File 00-0379). Any pay increase on October 1, 
2000 would be subject to separate Board of Supervisors 
approval. Additionally, employees in the above 
classifications, except classes 215 Bail Commissioner and 
255 Court Commissioner, who have completed five years of 
experience at the maximum salary rate for their 
classifications, will be credited with one additional floating 
holiday, from four to five floating holidays, to be used under 
the same restrictions as other floating holidays 1 , consistent 
with other City Departments. 

Comments: 1. The Controller estimates that the proposed MOU with 

the MEA (File 00-0379) and the proposed rates for 
unrepresented managers (File 00-0380) will result in 
estimated incremental costs of $195,000 in FY 1999-2000 
and $48,000 for the first three months of FY 2000-2001. 
The Controller's Office advises that, of these incremental 
costs, $186,600 would be State costs and $8,400 would be 
General Fund costs in FY 1999-2000 and $45,900 would be 
State costs and $2,100 would be General Fund costs in FY 
2000-2001. The Budget Analyst concurs with these cost 
estimates. A copy of the Controller's cost estimate is 
attached to this report. 



1 Currently, both unrepresented managers and managers covered by the MOU with MEA receive 
four floating holidays each year. These floating holidays must be used prior to the end of each fiscal 
year and cannot be carried over to the next fiscal year. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 22, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



2. California Government Code Section 69900 requires that 
the salary rates for Court employees be set by joint action 
of the Judges of the Court and the Board of Supervisors. 
According to Ms. Martin, the Judges have approved the 
proposed MOU with the MEA (File 00-0379) and the 
proposed salary rate increases and other economic benefits 
for the unrepresented management classifications (File 00- 
0380). The propose subject MOU with the MEA and the 
proposed ordinance setting economic benefits for 
unrepresented management classifications are subject to 
Board of Supervisors approval. 

3. The proposed ordinances (Files 00-0379 and 00-0380) 
would be effective on October 1, 1999. Therefore, the 
proposed ordinances should be amended to provide for 
salary rate increases, retroactive to October 1, 1999. 

4. Ms. Martin states that classifications 0620 Superior 
Court Commissioner, 0215 Bail Commissinner, and 0255 
Municipal Court Commissioner would not receive a wage 
increase under the proposed ordinances. These positions, 
which are tied to those of the Superior Court Judges, 
received a salary increase, effective July 1, 1999, at the 
time that the Superior Court Judges received a salary 
increase. The resulting salary increase for these 
classifications was 2.5 percent for FY 1999-2000, according 
to Ms. Martin. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed ordinances to provide for 
retroactivity, as noted in Comment No. 3. 



2. Approval of the proposed ordinances, as amended, is a 
policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Uar-16-00 02:54pn Fror-CCSF CONTROLLER OFFICE 

\l\ CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 




OFFICE OF THE CONTROLI 



Edward Rarrii 
ConD 



March 16, 2000 



Ms. Gloria L. Young. Clerk of the Board 

Board of Supen isors 

Cicy Hall, Room 244 

1 Dr. Carkon B. Goodlen Place" 

San Francisco, (.'A 94 1 02 



RE: Ordinances establishing compensation for Trial Court employees 
FileNos. 00-0379. and 00-380 



Dear Ms. Youn;:.: 

In accordance with Ordinance 92-94, I am submitting a cost analysis of ordinances fixing compensation for 
certain classifk uions of Tnal Court employees. The ordinances cover the period October 1, 1999 
through September 30, 2001, and affea approximately 77 permanent employees. 

The ordinances will result in incremental costs of approximately 5195,000 in FY 1999-2000, and S4S,000 
in FY 2000-2001 for the first three months of the fiscal year only. The ordinances contain a provision for 
a wage re-opcm:r in FY 2000-2001 , therefore the full cost of wage increases for the fiscal years covered by 
the period from October 1, 2000 through September 30. 2001 is not known at this time. 

The majority oi: the cost of salaries and benefits for the employees covered under these ordinances arc 
budgeted throu:;h the Tnal Courts Agency Fund and paid for by the State of California. However, of the 
above amounts, approximately SS.400 in FY 1999-2000 and S2.100 in FY 2000-2001 arc budgeted 
through the cit\'s General Fund. Sufficient funds for this purpose have already been appropriated to the 
Trial Courts' General Fund budget for FY 1999-2000. If you have any additional questions or concerns 
please contact me at 554-7500 or Peg Stevenson of my staff at 554-7522. 



Sincerely, 



toward M. Ha"rington 



Ec 
Controller 



.Alice Yillagomez, ERD 
Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst 



415-SS4-7S00 



City Hail • 1 Dr. Cirlloo B. G-oodlen Place • {Loom 316 • Sin Fnuui>cn CA 'M103-16X 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 22, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 6 - File 00-0381 



Department: 



Item: 



Description: 



Comments: 



Department of Human Resources (HRD) 
Superior Court 

Ordinance setting the rate of compensation for Superior 
Court classification 0256 Pro Tern Commissioner, employed 
on an "as needed" basis by the Superior Court. 

The proposed ordinance would set the level of compensation 
for one classification, the 0256 Pro Tern Commissioner, 
effective retroactively to November 16, 1999. The proposed 
salary rate increase would be in effect from November 16, 
1999, through June 30, 2001. Incumbents in this 
classification are employed on a daily basis to provide 
services in place of permanent Court Commissioners while 
permanent Court Commissioners are on vacation, 
unavailable because of official business, or medical 
absences. The Pro Tern Commissioners are assigned to 
hear moving and other traffic and parking infractions, 
conduct drivers' license suspension warrant protests, and 
hear small claims matters. The Superior Court uses less 
than two Pro Tern Commissioners each day, or an average 
of 1.5 FTE annually, to handle these matters 

The proposed ordinance would increase the hourly salary 
rate of the 0256 Pro Tern Commissioner from the current 
rate of $26.61 per hour to the proposed rate of $31.00 per 
hour, a 16.5 percent increase. 

1. According to Ms. Cheryl Martin of the Superior Court, 
prior to the Superior and Municipal Courts consolidation in 
December of 1998, Pro Tern Commissioners were paid at 
the lowest rate required by , California Government Code for 
Municipal Court Commissioners. Ms. Martin states that 
the pay rate for Pro Tern Commissioners in December of 
1998 was $26.61 per hour. After December 31, 1998, when 
consolidation of the Superior Court and the Municipal 
Court became effective, the permanent full-time 0255 
Municipal Court Commissioner and 0620 Superior Court 
Commissioner classifications had their pay rate set equal to 
one another, at 85 percent of Superior Court Judge pay. or 
$46.15 per hour. According to Ms. Martin, the Superior 
Court Judges determined that the Pro Tem Commissioners 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 22, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



should be paid at a lower rate of pay than the permanent 
full-time Municipal Court and Superior Court 
Commissioners. However, Ms. Martin states that because 
the Pro Tem Commissioners were not a separate 
classification at that time, a separate, lower pay rate could 
not be established. Therefore, the Pro Tem Commissioners 
received the prevailing rate of pay for the permanent full 
time Commissioners of $46.15 per hour, pending the 
classification of a Pro Tem Commissioner position. On July 
12, 1999, the Pro Tem Commissioners were moved into a 
new classification, 0256 Pro Tem Commissioner, and the 
salary rate was set at $26.61 per hour, the hourly salary 
rate which had been in effect previously on December 31, 
1998. 

2. Ms. Martin states that on November 16, 1999, the 
Superior Court Judges approved an increase in the hourly 
rate of pay for 0256 Pro Tem Commissioners to $31.00 per 
hour, a 16.5 percent increase over the prior rate of $26.61 
per hour. According to Ms. Martin, the proposed $31.00 per 
hour salary rate is based on an internal rate comparison 
with Superior Court Clerk and Attorney positions. Ms. 
Martin states that Pro Tem Commissioners are attorneys, 
and fulfill the same functions as permanent full-time 
Commissioners on an as-needed basis. 

3. Ms Martin states that the proposed salary rate increase 
would be retroactive to November 16, 1999 and as such the 
proposed ordinance provides for ratification of actions 
previously taken. According to Ms. Martin, the proposed 
salary rate increase has not been implemented, pending 
Board of Supervisors' approval. 

4. The Controller estimates .that the proposed hourly salary 
rate increase from $26.61 to $31.00 will result in estimated 
incremental costs of $7,900 in FY 1999-2000 and $15,700 in 
FY 2000-2001. The Controller's Office advises that these 
incremental costs would be funded by the State and 
therefore, are not paid from the General Fund. The Budget 
Analyst concurs with the Controller's costs estimates. A 
copy of the Controller's cost estimate is attached to this 
report. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 22, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for 
the Board of Supervisors., 



/A 



Harvey M. Rose 



cc: Supervisor Yee 
Supervisor Bierman 
President Ammiano 
Supervisor Becerril 
Supervisor Brown 
Supervisor Katz 
Supervisor Kaufman 
Supervisor Leno 
Supervisor Newsom 
Supervisor Teng 
Supervisor Yaki 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Legislative Analyst 
Erin McGrath 
Stephen Kawa 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Mar-16-00 02:54pm From-CCSF CONTROLLER OFFICE Attachment 

* isi CITY A ND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF TH E CONTROLLE 

Edward Harriugt 
Control] 




March 16, 2000 



Ms. Gloria L. Young, Clerk of the Board 

Board of Supervisors 

City Hall, Room 244 

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodletr Place 

San Francisco, CA 94102 



]'•'£.: Ordinances establishing compensanon for Trial Court employees 
File No. 00-0381 



Dear Ms. Youn;;;: 

In accordance v<ith Ordinance 92-94, I am submitring a cost analysis of an ordinance fixing compensation 
for Trial Court employees in class 0256 Pro Tern Commissioner. The ordinance covers the period October 
1, 1999 through June 30, 2001, and affects employees used on an "as-nccded" basis, approximately 1.5 
full time equivalent positions per year. 

The ordinance vill result in incremental costs of approximately S7.900 in FY 1999-2000, and 515,700 in 
FY 2000-2001. The cost of salaries and benefits for the employees covered under this ordinance is 
budgeted through the Trial Courts Agency Fund and paid for by the State of California. There is no cost to 
the city's General Fund under this ordinance. If you have any additional quesuons or concerns please 
contact me at 5: : 4-7500 or Peg Stevenson of my staff at 554-7522. 



Sincerely, 



ir 
ward M. Hatnngton 

Controller 

cc: Alice Villagomez, ERD 

Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst 



415-554.7500 City Hall • I Dr. Orlton B Goodltll P1»« • Rwim 316 • S«n froncltto CA 94102-4694 f AX 41; 5r4-7J 



lo.zw 




City and County otSan Francisco GOVERNMENT DOC SECTION 
Meeting Minutes Main Library 

Finance and Labor Committee 

Members: Supervisors Leland Yee, Sue Merman, Tom An 

<t 

Clerk: Mary Red 



Wednesday, March 29, 2000 



10:00 AM 
Regular Meeting 



City Hall, Room 263 



Members Present: Leland Y. Yee, Tom Ammiano. 
Members Absent: Sue Bierman. 



Meeting Convened 

The meeting convened at 10:07 a.m. 

REGULAR AGENDA 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

APR - 3 2030 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC L!BRAP\ 



000418 (Civil Service Commission Certification of Prevailing Rate of Wages] 

Resolution fixing the highest general prevailing rate of wages, including wages for overtime and holiday work. 

for various crafts and kinds of labor as paid for similar work in private employment in the City and County of 

San Francisco at the rates certified to the Board by the Civil Service Commission on December 6, 1999. (Civil 

Service Commission) 

3/7/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Ken Bruce, Budget Analyst's Office: Geoffrey Rothman, Department of 

Human Resources. 

RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



000425 IRenewal of a 5-year term lease at 653 Chenery Street for the Glen Park Branch Library at a monthly 
rent of SI, 875 for the initial term] 

Resolution authorizing lease of real property at 653 Chenery Street for the Glen Park Branch Library. (Real 
Estate Department) 

3/8/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Ken Bruce, Budget Analyst's Office: Tony DeLucchi, Real Estate 
Department. Opposed: Anastasia Yovanopoulos. Noe Tenants Amended to make retroactive to February I. 
2000. 

AMENDED. 

Resolution authorizing retroactive to February 1, 2000. lease of real property at 653 Chenerj Street for the 
Glen Park Branch Library. (Real Estate Department) 
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 4:28 PM on 



Finance and Labor Committee Meeting Minutes March 2'). 211110 



992295 [Municipal Railway Reduced College Student Rate| 
Supervisors iNewsom, Ka(/ 

I Icanng to consider the feasibility of offering a reduced student rate on the Municipal Railway for enrolled 

university students attending college within the < itj and I ounty <>i San Francisco. 

12/13/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to I inane* and I abor Committee 

I hard m Committee. Speakers Ken Brine. Budget Analyst's Office, Laura Spanjian, Municipal Railway 

(MUNI): Supervisor Yee. Supervisor Ammiano. Vicky Nguyen, l niversit) n/ San Francisco, Christine Gaddi, 

U.C. Berkeley. Robert Kuo, Finance, Ml XI. Holly Hogan, S /' City College, inastasia Yovanopoulos Heidi 

Maehen. Supervisor Newson's Aide 

CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR b\ the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



SPECIAL ORDER -11:00 A.M. 



000449 |San Francisco General Hospital Psychiatric Facilities) 
Supervisors Newsom, I eng, Leno, tmmiano 

Hearing to consider the proposal to close part of the psychiatric capacity at San Francisco General Hospital 
and future plans for serving dual diagnosis patients who suffer from substance abuse and psychiatric problems. 
3/13/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGN! Dtol inanoeand I ibor Committee 

Heard in Committee Speakers Supervisor Yee. Supervisor Ammiano, Supervisor Uewsom, Supervisor Leno; 
Dr Mitchell Katz, Director oj Health; Ken Bruce. Budget inatyst's Office inastasia Yovanopoulos. Fred 
Hobson, l.aun Hjelm, Nurse, SFGH Department of Psychiatry, John Nick ns, PhD. Progress Foundation. 
James Murray, Nurse, SFGH Department of Psychiatry, Eve Meyer, S F Suicide Prevention. Eva del Campo. 
Nurse. SFGH Department oj Psvchiatn . Rev Kale Jorgensen, Jennifer Friendbach, Coalition on 
Homelessness; Donna Wolfe, Psychiatric Nurse, Tenderloin Outpatient Clinic. Dr Mark Lean. Deputy- Chief. 
UCSF Psychiatry at SFGH, Delphine Brody, Dr, KateBeyrer, Director. Psychiatru En rvices, 

SFGH; Chance Martin. Daniel Ip Chan. Asian Mental Health Task Force Bonnie Schwartz. Program 
Director, Cross Currents Team. Community Focus Program. James LaPoinl. Rebecca Hensler. HIV/AIDS 
Councilor. SFGH; Khalil Hahcch. Finance Director. Department of Psychiatry, Dr Troy Kaji. St Anthony 's 
Medical Director. Mily Trabmg. Director. Psvchiatn and Social Work. SFGH; Troy Williams, RN, 
Psychiatric Emergency Sen ices. SFGH; Rosemary Dady. Bay Area Legal Assistance, Karen MacLeod. Jo 
Ellen Rodriguez. Psychiatrist. SFGH; David Fanello. Director. Citywule Case \fanagement; Dr Steve Walsh. 
Northern California Psychiatric Society. Lawrence Blow. Dr Charles Xdlela. Psychiatrist, SFGH. Kim 
I'aldez. Swords to Plowshares; Olivia Flares Bevmeau. Man Kate Connor. Terry Bowman Norma Hotaling. 
SAGE Project; Darren Lewis. Louis Airman; John Grimes. Assistant Director. Community Focus. Judith 
Stevenson. Bakers Place; Diane Hudson; George Williams; Gordon Pooler. Pre-Locational Community 
Advisory Board. Nancy Manelli, Nurse. SFGH Department of Psychiatry, Raymond Van I nit Clerk. Asian 
Focus; Shanan Coughlin. Coalition to Save Public Health; Francis Lu. M D . Director. Cultural Compi I 
and Diversity Program. 
FILED b> the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



ADJOURNMENT 

The meeting adjourned at 1:07 p in 
City and County- of San Francisco 2 Printed at 4:28 PS1 on J/3WW 



3 



Susan Horn 

Government Documents Section 
Main Library 



CITY AND COUNTY 




OF §AN FRANCISCO 



^OARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 

FAX (415) 252-0461 



March 23, 2000 
TO: ^Finance and Labor Committee 

FROM: budget Analyst 
SUBJECT: .March 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

DOCUMENTS DP 



Item 1 - File 00-0418 



Departments: 



Item: 



Description: 



Civil Service Commission 

Department of Human Resources (DHR) 



MAR 2 8 2CO0 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Resolution fixing the highest general prevailing 
rate of wages, including wages for overtime and 
holiday work, for various crafts and kinds of labor 
as paid for similar work m private employment in 
the City and County of San Francisco at the rates 
certified to the Board of Supervisors by the Civil 
Service Commission on December 6, 1999. 

Charter Section 7.204 requires that City contracts 
for public works or improvements involving 
construction or fabrication provide for the payment 
of the highest general prevailing wage rates 1 to all 
persons performing the labor under such contracts. 
Section 6.37 of the City's Administrative Code 
requires that the Board of Supervisors, at least 



' A prevailing rate of wage is the rate of compensation being paid to a majority of workers engaged in 
specified category of craft or labor. 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



once during each calendar year, fix and determine 
these highest general prevailing rate of wages paid 
in private employment, in accordance with Charter 
Section 7.204, including rates of wages for overtime 
and holiday work. The proposed resolution would 
establish these highest general prevailing rates of 
wages which private employers are required to pay 
various workers performing labor under such City 
contracts. The Attachment, provided by Mr. Geoff 
Rothman of the Department of Human Resources, 
contains a list of all such workers. 

In accordance with Section 6.37 of the City's 
Administrative Code, to assist the Board of 
Supervisors in determining these wage rates, the 
Civil Service Commission is required to furnish to 
the Board of Supervisors, on or before the first 
Monday in November of each year, data as to the 
highest general prevailing rates of wages as paid 
by private employers to various craft and other 
workers in San Francisco. Section 6.37 also states 
that the Board of Supervisors is not limited to the 
data submitted by the Civil Service Commission in 
determining the prevailing wage rates, but may 
consider other information on the subject as the 
Board of Supervisors deems proper. 

In March of 1989, the Board of Supervisors 
amended the City's Administrative Code to include 
the operation of a public off-street parking lot or 
garage under the term "public work or 
improvements, as defined in Section 6.37 in order 
to provide prevailing wages to private Garage 
Attendants in City-owned garages. In addition, in 
May of 1999, the Board of Supervisors further 
amended the City's Administrative Code to require 
that persons performing janitorial services under 
contract to the City be paid not less than the 
general prevailing rate of wages in private 
employment for similar work. 

The Civil Service Commission has provided the 
Board of Supervisors with the following data for 
determining the highest general prevailing rate of 
wages: (a) the General Prevailing Wage 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET 9 ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Determination Survey conducted by the Director of 
Industrial Relations of the State of California for 
all craft workers, except Garage Attendants and 
Janitorial Service Workers, (b) the existing 
agreement, in effect through November 30, 2000, 
between Parking Employers and Teamsters 
Automotive Employees, Local 665 for Garage 
Attendants and (c) the tentative agreement 
effective August 1, 1999 through July 31, 2003, 
between San francisco Maintenance contractors 
Association and the Service Employees 
International Union (SEIU), Building Service 
Employees Local 87 for Janitors and Custodians. 

Comments: 1. A copy of the data submitted to the Board of 

Supervisors by the Civil Service Commission on 
December 6. 1999, as to the highest general 
prevailing rate of wages paid by private employers 
to various craft workers in San Francisco is on file 
with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. 
According to the current five-year agreement for 
the period from December 1, 1995 through 
November 30, 2000, the highest hourly rate for 
Garage Attendants was $14.50 per hour as of 
December 1, 1999. According to the tentative four- 
year agreement for the period August 1, 1999 
through July 31, 2003, the highest hourly rate for 
Janitors and Custodians is $14.45 per hour, as of 
August 1, 1999. 

2. As discussed above, the Civil Service 
Commission is required to furnish data to the 
Board of Supervisors as to the highest general 
prevailing rate of wages as paid by private 
employers to various craft and other workers in 
San Francisco, as identified in the Attachment. 
This data is to be forwarded to the Board of 
Supervisors on or before the first Monday in 
November of each year, or by November 1, 1999 of 
this past year. However, the Budget Analyst notes 
that the Civil Service Commission did not certify 
and forward such data to the Board of Supervisors 
until December 6, 1999. Mr. Rothman reports that 
this delay was because the Civil Service 
Commission was awaiting a final janitorial 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



contract, which was extended due to a threatened 
strike by Janitors in the City. 

3. The proposed resolution states on the first page, 
on line 9, that Administrative Code Section 6.22 
requires the Board of Supervisors to fix the highest 
general prevailing rate of wages, including wages 
paid for holiday and overtime work. However, as 
discussed above, it is Administrative Code Section 
6.37, not Section 6.22, which establishes this 
provision. The proposed resolution should therefore 
be amended to state that it is Section 6.37, rather 
than Section 6.22. 

4. In response to the Budget Analyst's request for 
fiscal impact data of the proposed legislation, Mr. 
Rothman reports that neither the Civil Service 
Commission nor the Department of Human 
Resources has conducted a specific fiscal analysis of 
fixing the highest general prevailing rate of wages 
for craft workers, Garage Attendants and Janitors. 
However, Mr. Rothman advises, if the proposed 
resolution is approved, it will require all 
construction and maintenance contractors and 
parking lot management companies that do work 
for the City to pay the highest general prevailing 
rate of wages for such Craft Workers, Janitors and 
Garage Attendants, which may ultimately result in 
higher total costs (or lower revenues from the 
parking garages) to the City. The actual costs to 
the City, however, will be determined by the 
individual bids or proposals submitted for each 
such City contract. Mr. Rothman further advises 
that neither the Civil Service Commission (CSC) 
nor the Department of Human Resources (DHR) 
has the ability to determine such costs, since the 
CSC and DHR are not involved in the awarding, 
costing or tracking of such contracts. 

5. Ms. Peg Stevenson of the Controller's Office 
reports that the Controller's Office cannot estimate 
the fiscal impact of the proposed resolution because 
their Office would need to do further research and 
analysis of contracts to determine such impacts. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

k 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

6. The Budget Analyst advises that the proposed 
rate of $14.45 per hour for private contract 
Janitorial workers is between $0.65 to $3.84 per 
hour less, when compared to the City's current rate 
of $15.10 per hour at the first step to $18.29 per 
hour at the top step for a 2708 City Custodian 
position. Therefore, the Budget Analyst notes that, 
even with the proposed highest general prevailing 
rate of wages for private janitorial staff, it is likely 
to still be less costly to continue to contract out 
existing janitorial services contracts. 

Recommendations: 1. In accordance with Comment No. 3 above, amend 
line 9 on the first page of the proposed resolution to 
replace Administrative Code Section 6.22 with 
Section 6.37 to reference the correct section. 

2. Given that the Department of Human Resources 
is not able to provide the fiscal impact of the 
proposed legislation, approval of the proposed 
resolution, as amended, is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

5 



Attachment 



Workers covered by the Prevailing Wage Legislation 



Janitors 

Parking Garage Attendants 

Boilermaker-Blacksmith 

Iron Worker 

Electrical Utility Lineman 

Telephone Installation Worker 

Boilermaker-Blacksmith (for storage tank 

erection and repair) 
Sewer Maintenance 
Tree Trimmer (Line Clearance) 
Stator Rewinder 
Electrical Utility Lineman 
Asbestos Worker, Heat and Frost Insulator 
Asbestos Removal Worker (Laborer) 
Building Inspector (Operating Engineer) 
Boilermaker (for Pipelines) 
Carpenter 
Cranes, Pile Driver and Hoisting Equipment 

(Operating Engineer) 
Cement Mason 
Dredger (Operating Engineer) 
Drywall Installer (Carpenter) 
Elevator Constructor 
Fence Builder (Carpenter) 
Fence Constructor (Laborer) 
Fire Safety and Miscellaneous Sealing 
Gunite Worker (Laborer) 
Housemover (Laborer) 
Laborer 

Landfill Worker (Operating Engineer) 
Landscape Irrigation Laborer 
Landscape Maintenance Laborer 
Landscape Operating Engineer 
Light Fixture Maintenance 
Light Fixture Maintenance 
Operating Engineer 
Parking and Highway Improvement Painter 

(Laborer) 
Slurry Seal Worker 
Teamster 
Tunnel Worker (Laborer) 
Tunnel (Operating Engineer) 
Carpenter 
Cement Mason 
Cranes, Pile Driving and Hoisting Equipment 

(Operating Engineer) 
Drywall Installer (Carpenter) 
Laborer 
C:\windows\TEMP\-ME00003.doc Page 1 



Operating Engineer 

Parking and Highway Improvement Painter 

(Laborer) 
Teamster 

Tunnel (Operating Engineer) 
Asbestos Worker, Heat and Frost Insulator 
Asbestos Removal Worker (Laborer) 
Carpenter 
Cement Mason 
Dredger (Operating Engineer) 
Drywall Installer (Carpenter) 
Elevator Constructor 
Fence Constructor (Carpenter) 
Laborer 

Laborer Trainee (Landscape Construction) 
Landscape Maintenance Laborer 
Light Fixture Maintenance 
Traffic Control/Lane Closure (Laborer) 
Operating Engineer (Heavy and Highway 

Work) 
Operating Engineer (Building Construction) 
Operating Engineer (Landscape 

Construction) 
Parking and Highway Improvement Painter 

(Laborer) 
Parking and Highway Improvement Painter 
Pile Driver (Carpenter) Pile Driver (Operating 

Engineer -Heavy and Highway Work) 
Pile Driver (Operating Engineer -Building 

Construction) 
Slurry Seal Worker 
Steel, Tank and Machinery Erection 

(Operating Engineer- Heavy and Highway 

Work) 
Steel, Tank and Machinery Erection 

(Operating Engineer- Building 

Construction) 
Teamster 

Tunnel Worker (Laborer) 
TunnelfUnderground (Operating Engineer) 



03/22/00 3:29 PM 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 2 - File 00-0425 



Department: 
Item: 

Location: 

Purpose of Lease: 

Lessor: 

Lessee: 

No. of Sq. Ft. and 
Cost Per Month: 



Annual Cost: 

Increase (Decrease) 
in Cost: 



Term of Lease: 



Right of Renewal: 



Public Library 

Department of Real Estate (DRE) 

Resolution authorizing a renewal lease of real property 
at 653 Chenery Street for the Glen Park Branch 
Library. 

653 Chenery Street 

Space for the Glen Park Branch Library 

Yalborg C. Tie;.. Trustee, Udt 

Citv and Countv of San Francisco 



Approximately 1.500 square feet at $1.25 per square 
foot per month, for a total of $1,875 per month 
($22,500 annually). Ms. Claudine Venegas of the 
Department of Real Estate advises that the proposed 
$1,875 rent per month is a flat rate, which will not 
increase during the five year lease term or be subject 
to any cost of living adjustments. 



$22,500 per year, for five years. 



Ms. Venegas reports that since July 1, 1993 the 
monthly rent for the approximate 1,500 square feet 
has remained the same, with no increases, at $1,364 
per month ($0.91 per square foot per month, or 
$16,368 per year). Under the proposed lease, rent 
would increase by $511 per month, from the previous 
rent of $1,364 to $1,875 per month ($22,500 annually), 
representing a 37.5 percent increase. 

Five years, commencing retroactively to February 1. 
2000 and terminatine on January 31, 2005 (See 
Comment No. 2). 

The City would have the option to extend the lease for 
one additional five-year period, at the fair market rent 
to be determined by both the lessor and the City. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

7 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Utilities and Janitor 
Provided by Lessor: 



The City would be responsible for all utility and 
janitorial costs. 



Description: 



Tenant Improvements: 
Comments: 



The proposed resolution would approve a five-year 
renewal lease to provide approximately 1,500 square 
feet of space for the Glen Park Branch Library for a 
monthly rent of $1,875 ($22,500 annually). According 
to Ms. Venegas, the previous one-year option term for 
the same space expired on June 30, 1994. Since then, 
the City has occupied the premises on a month-to- 
month hold-over basis pending the completion of 
lessor-financed renovations, at an estimated cost of 
$5,000, of the facility's restrooms to meet handicap 
accessibility requirements. According to Ms. Venegas, 
the City did not pay for any of these renovation costs. 

Ms. Venegas advises that the month-to-month lease 
continued for six years and that renewal of a longer- 
term lease was not implemented because the Library 
was investigating the possibility of expanding the Glen 
Park Branch to the adjoining parcel owned by the 
same lessor. According to Ms. Venegas, the Library's 
expansion plans and the lessor's development plans 
resulted in the delay of renovations of the existing 
Glen Park Branch restrooms. Ms. Venegas reports that 
the Library subsequently decided not to follow through 
with its expansion plans. 

None 

1. According to Ms. Venegas, the proposed rent, which 
will result in a 37.5 percent increase from the previous 
rent, represents fair market value. 

2. The proposed lease commenced on February 1. 2000 
and will terminate on January 31. 2005. Therefore, the 
proposed resolution should be amended to allow for 
retroactive authorization. 



3. According to Ms. Venegas, the lease negotiations 
were completed in January of 2000, and the lessor 
requested that the term commence on February 1. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

2000, subject to Board of Supervisors approval. It 
should also be recognized that the lessor has not raised 
the rent since July 1, 1993, including the six years 
since July 1, 1994 that the lease has been on a month- 
to-month basis. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed resolution to provide for 

retroactive authorization, in accordance with 
Comment No. 2 above. 

2. Approve the proposed resolution, as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

9 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 3 - File 99-2295 



Department: 



Item: 



Public Transportation Department 
Municipal Railway (Muni) 

Hearing to consider the feasibility of offering a reduced 
student rate on the Municipal Railway for enrolled 
students attending college within the City and County of 
San Francisco. 



Description: 



On December 20, 1999 the Board of Supervisors adopted a 
resolution urging the Municipal Railway to investigate the 
possibility of offering a reduced student rate for enrolled 
students attending college within the City (Resolution No. 
1174-99). The resolution noted that such a program could 
be funded from the sale of discounted Muni transit passes 
to college and university students. Payment to Muni for the 
discounted transit passes would be from student fees 
assessed by the respective college or university. The 
benefits of such a program according to the resolution 
would be increased public transit utilization b} r students, 
thereby assisting in reducing traffic congestion and parking 
problems. The resolution further directed the Muni to 
report back to the Board of Supervisors with 
recommendations for such a program within eight weeks. 

A discounted transit pass for all students attending college 
in the City would result in decreased revenue to the Muni 
from students who currently pay the full price of an adult 
transit pass or full fare. However, the proposed program 
would also result in the purchase of such discounted passes 
by all such students, at a discounted rate, through student 
fee assessments, thereby resulting in increased sales and 
additional revenue to the Muni. The fiscal impact of such a 
program therefore will depend on the amount of the 
discount and the net effect of decreased revenues from 
existing student users offset by the sale of additional passes 
to students that do not currently use Muni. 

The Attachment to this report is a letter from Mr. Michael 
Burns, General Manager of Muni, concerning the proposed 
program to offer a reduced student rate. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

10 






Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

According to Mr. Burns, the staff of the San Francisco 
Municipal Railway believe that a discount of as much as 65 
percent off the cost of an adult monthly pass may be 
feasible if the reduced rate passes are issued to college 
students through a student fee increase. An adult monthly 
pass now costs $35. A 65 percent discount for college 
students would result in a discount of $22.75 meaning that 
such passes would cost $12.25 per month ($35 less $22.75). 

Mr. Burn's letter states that a "65 percent discount rate 
appears, feasible in terms of revenue; at this discount level 
it is unlikely that Muni will suffer revenue losses resulting 
from this program." The Muni's analysis concludes that any 
discount greater than 65 percent would require funding 
from another source to offset the loss in fare revenue. 

Comments: 1. The Muni estimates that between five percent and 15 

percent of Muni's current farebox revenue is received from 
college students who would qualify for a discounted transit 
pass program, or approximately $5,000,000 to $15,000,000 
per year. 

2. According to the attached letter from Mr. Burns, the 
Muni has discussed this potential program with San 
Francisco State University (SFSU) and the University of 
San Francisco (USF). However, the discount rates 
suggested by the two universities (up to 90 percent) would 
result in a loss of between $1,000,000 and $10,000,000 per 
year. As noted above, the Muni estimates that a 65 percent 
discount would result in no net revenue loss for the Muni. 

3. As stated in the attachment to this report, the Muni 
recommends the following next steps: 

• Continue working with representatives from SFSU 
and USF to review the feasibility of a maximum 65 
percent discount payable through student fees. 

• Review program options with other interested 
Universities. 

• Further develop details of program administration 
including costs, security, and administrative 
procedures. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

11 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



• As needed, make further recommendations to, and 
seek approval from, the Board of Directors of the 
Municipal Transportation Agency. 

4. In summary, the fiscal impact of a program to offer 
discounted transit passes to students attending colleges or 
universities in the City will depend on the amount of the 
discount and the net effect of decreased revenues from 
existing student users, who currently pay full adult fares or 
purchase adult passes, offset by the sale of additional 
discounted passes to students that do not currently use 
Muni. The Muni estimates that a discount of 65 percent 
would be revenue neutral in that the revenue decrease 
resulting from the discount pass would be balanced by the 
sale of additional college student passes. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

12 



Attachmen t 
Pa.qe 1 of 4 



San Francisco Public Transportation Department 







401 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 334. San Francisco, CA 94102 
Phone: 415.5544129 Fax: 415.554.4143 



February 28, 2000 



Gloria Young \ ' 

Clerk of the Board of Supervisors >•> . '^ 

City and County of San Francisco -^5?r> ^" 

City Hall, Room 244 

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Re: College Student Discount Fares 

Dear Ms. Young: 

This report presents the preliminary recommendations of the San Francisco Municipal 
Railway staff regarding a discount fare for students enrolled at colleges or Universities 
within the City and County of San Francisco. 

Based on information available at this time, the staff of the San Francisco Municipal 
Railway believe that a discount, possibly as great as 65 percent off the cost of an adult 
monthly pass, may be feasible if the reduced rate passes are issued to the entire student 
body through a student fee increase. Any discount greater than 65 percent would require 
funding from another source to offset the loss in fare revenue. 

Muni's staff is committed to creating a consistent and financially feasible program that 
can be offered to all interested colleges in San Francisco, rather than multiple programs 
using different rates for different schools. With over 130,000 students enrolled at more 
than seven colleges and Universities in San Francisco, a student discount could have a 
significant impact on Muni's finances. Initial discussions have occurred with San 
Francisco State University and the University of San Francisco: creating a sustainable 
and feasible program will require careful program development with these and other 
interested colleges and universities. 



Current Muni Finances and Fare Policy 

The review by Muni staff of a discounted student fare program was conducted in the 
context of the Department's current financial situation and existing fare policies. 

• Current Operating Budget Constraints. Potential changes to fare revenues must be 
carefully evaluated for their impact on the Department's overall budget. The San 
Francisco Municipal Railway derives approximately 1/3 of its operating budget from 



13 



Attachment 
rage 2 of 4 



fare revenues. Muni must therefore ensure that fare policies do not cause a reduction 
in revenues. 

Proposition E Financial Incentives. Proposition E, which was adopted by the voters 
in November 1999, creates strong incentives for the Municipal Transportation 
Agency (MTA) to develop non-general fund revenues. In this context, Muni staff 
favor a program that would issue student discount passes through a fee paid by all 
students. This could provide a predictable, stable source of funding while offering 
students a substantial discount. 

Existing Fare Policy. Muni currently has a wide variety of fare rates and 
mechanisms. Any new fare device needs to be consistent with the current structure 
while having reasonable administrative procedures. A 65 percent discount with 
passes administered in part by the involved colleges offers a relatively simple fare 
structure in which the administrative burden is partly shared. Muni staff is aware that 
the new Board of Directors of the MTA will need to approve any proposed fare 
changes in order to make the changes effective. 



Other Bay Area "Class Pass" Programs 

Staff at Muni have drawn from information available from other system's experiences 
with student discount programs, especially AC Transit's program with UC Berkeley. The 
most relevant lessons are that having a student fee-based mechanism may take time to 
achieve but ultimately offers a stable program benefiting the community. However, it is 
difficult to estimate the revenue impacts for this type of program. 

AC Transit has created a "Class Pass" program with the University of California at 
Berkeley. Similar to what Muni is considering, the AC Transit passes are issued each 
semester and paid out of student fees. AC Transit's main goal was to increase ridership 
rather than revenue. Passes cost $20 for a 9-month school year. At this stage, AC Transit 
does not have data to indicate whether the program is increasing or decreasing their 
revenues. 

The Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority (VTA) has a similar student program with the 
California State University at San Jose. The VTA program costs students $35 for a 9- 
month pass, but the University pays a subsidy to VTA to defray the difference between 
the regular adult rate and the student rate. 

It should be noted that both AC Transit and VTA have introduced these programs in an 
effort to fill empty seats on service already being provided. Most Muni service is at or 
near capacity already and ridership increases yield demands for increased service and 
increased subsidy. 



14 



Attachment 
fage 3 of A 



Proposals from the Colleges 

Municipal Railway staff have met with representatives from San Francisco State 
University (SFSU) and from the University of San Francisco (USF) regarding student 
discount programs. Other colleges in the City & County of San Francisco have not 
contacted Muni regarding discounted student fares. Further information about SFSU and 
USF follows. 

• San Francisco State University. SFSU favors a pass available to all students, staff, 
and faculty at a cost of approximately $20/semester (an 87 percent discount from the 
adult monthly pass), payable as part of student fees. Students would need to vote on 
and approve any fee increase; this process could take up to 18 months. According to 
a 1998 survey conducted by the University, approximately 64 percent of SFSU's 
25,000 enrolled students ride the Muni as their primary transport to and from school. 
The survey did not identify other important information such as the number of trips 
taken per week or average fare paid. 

• University of San Francisco. USF favors a program initially offered only to 
undergraduates, with passes costing $30/year (approximately a 90 percent discount 
from the adult monthly pass), payable through student fees. Students would need to 
vote on and approve this fee increase; USF estimates this process could take 6-9 
months. USF has approximately 3,700 undergraduate students and 4,000 graduate 
students. According to a 1999 survey provided by the University, between 39 percent 
and 68 percent of students ride the Muni to and from school. As with SFSU, 
important ridership information was not available from the survey. 



Revenue Impacts of a "Class Pass" Program 

Although Muni recommends pursuing a student fee-based student discount program, the 
discount levels requested by SFSU and USF do not appear to be financially feasible at 
this time. Rather, Muni staff recommends a maximum 65 percent discount from the 
current adult monthly pass rate. 

Results of the financial analysis are provided below, based on available information 
about student enrollment, ridership, and average fares paid. 

• Current Student Impact on Muni Revenues: Students represent between 5 percent and 
15 percent of Muni farebox revenue, generating approximately $5-15 million per year 
in fare revenue. 

• Discounts Proposed by SFSU and USF: Discount levels proposed by SFSU and USF 
could reduce Muni revenue by $1-10 million per year, if the discount were applied to 
seven major colleges within San Francisco. If an 87-90 percent discount were offered 
only to SFSU and USF, the revenue losses could be between $900,000 and $1.8 
million per year. 



15 



Attachment 
Page 4 of 4 



Financially Feasible Discount Level: A 65 percent discount appears feasible in terms 
of revenue; at this discount level it is unlikely that Muni will suffer revenue losses 
resulting from this program. Greater than 65 percent discounts could result in 
revenue losses compared to current revenue levels, and could require additional 
funding from another source to offset the loss in revenue. 



Service Impacts 

Muni is currently involved in a variety of service and performance initiatives, detailed in 
the San Francisco Municipal Railway 2000 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP). A 
discounted student fare program could increase ridership, but information on the scope of 
this increase is not currently available. It should be noted that despite any potential 
increase in the number or frequency of trips taken by students, service changes designed 
specifically for college and university locations are not anticipated beyond what is 
presently included in the SRTP. However, Muni's service and performance initiatives 
are continuously reviewed in the context of service and program priorities. 



Next Steps 

To continue developing the Class Pass program, Muni staff will: 

• Continue working with representatives from SFSU and USF to review the feasibility 
of a maximum 65 percent discount payable through student fees. 

• Review program options with other interested Universities. 

• Further develop details of program administration including costs, security, and 
administrative procedures. 

• As needed, make further recommendations to, and seek approval from, the Board of 
Directors of the MTA. 



Very truly yours. 



Michael T. Bums 
General Manager 



cc: Supervisor Gavin Newsom 



16 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 4 - File 00-0449 

1. This is a hearing to consider (a) the proposal to close part of the psychiatric 
capacity at San Francisco General Hospital and (b) future plans for serving dual 
diagnosis patients who suffer from substance abuse and psychiatric problems. 

2. The attached memorandum, provided by DPH, summarizes the proposed 
reduction of acute psychiatric beds at SFGH in the FY 2000-2001 budget and 
proposed alternative programs to provide mental health services to sub-acute 
psychiatric patients. 

3. The General Fund subsidy for the Department of Public Health (DPH) in FY 
1999-2000 is $232.6 million. According to Dr. Mitchell Katz of DPH, the projected 
General Fund subsidy in the FY 2000-2001 DPH budget is $252.5 million, a S19.9 
million or 8.5 percent increase over FY 1999-2000. Dr. Katz states that the proposed 
increase in General Fund subsidy to the DPH budget results primarily from 
decreased revenue from other funding sources. 

4. Currently, DPH has budgeted for 92 acute psychiatric beds at San Francisco 
General Hospital (SFGH). According to Dr. Katz, in the FY 2000-2001, DPH has 
proposed a budget for 71 acute psychiatric beds, a reduction of 21 beds or 22.8 
percent. Dr. Katz states that DPH is proposing to reduce the number of acute 
psychiatric beds to offset the loss in revenues, due to de-certification and denial of 
Medi-Cal reimbursements for psychiatric patients who do not qualify for acute 
psychiatric care. The reduction of 21 beds would result in a reduction of $ 3.000,000 
budgeted for acute psychiatric beds. 

5. Dr. Katz states that DPH expects a $2.2 million deficit in Short Doyle Medi- 
Cal revenues in FY 1999-2000. Short Doyle Medi-Cal funds are Federal funds used 
to reimburse mental health services provided to Medi-Cal patients. According to 
Ms. Monique Zmuda of DPH, in the proposed FY 2000-2001 DPH budget, DPH 
projects a $2,180,000 reduction from FY 1999-2000 m Short Doyle Medi-Cal 
revenues. 

6. Dr. Katz states that Medi-Cal denies reimbursement for approximately 60 
percent of the acute psychiatric bed days billed to Medi-Cal. According to Dr. Katz, 
some patients are not discharged from the psychiatric unit, even after the staff 
determines that they no longer require acute psychiatric hospitalization. Often, 
such patients are difficult to place because they are homeless, have substance abuse 
problems, or have no alternative placement. Medi-Cal does not reimburse SFGH for 
patients occupying acute psychiatric beds if they do not have an acute psychiatric 
diagnosis. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

17 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

7. According to Dr. Katz. in the FY 2000-2001 DPH budget, DPH has proposed 
$900,000 for supportive housing and neurobehavioral psychiatric sub-acute beds for 
the placement of physically and mentally ill patients. According to Dr. Katz, sub- 
acute psychiatric patients would be placed in supportive housing or neurobehavioral 
psychiatric sub-acute beds, as appropriate, rather than being maintained in SFGH 
acute psychiatric beds. 

8. The FY 2000-2001 DPH budget also proposes $433,000 for the funding of a 
behavioral/psychiatric ward at Laguna Honda Hospital (LHH) for psychiatric 
patients discharged from SFGH who need this type of care. 

9. Dr. Katz states that DPH also proposes to reallocate funds within the DPH 
budget to develop a short-stay rehabilitation ward at LHH that will focus on 
enabling residents to prepare for their return to the community. According to Dr. 
Katz, this ward will decrease the length of stay for patients at LHH. Dr. Katz 
states that, by enabling patients to be discharged from LHH in a shorter period of 
time, an increased number of LHH beds will become available for SFGH patients 
who no longer require acute hospitalization. 

10. Dr. Katz reports that DPH currently has a number of programs for dually 
diagnosed patients who suffer from substance abuse and psychiatric problems. The 
supportive housing and neurobehavioral psychiatric subacute beds proposed in FY 
2000-2001 budget will serve dually diagnosed patients. Dr. Katz states that almost 
all of the mental health programs provided by DPH serve psychiatric patients with 
substance abuse problems. Whether there should be a further expansion of 
programs for dually diagnosed patients is a policy decision for the Mayor and the 
Board of Supervisors which would require additional funding according to Dr. Katz. 

11. In summary, in FY 2000-2001, DPH has proposed the following changes: 

• DPH has proposed reducing the number of acute psychiatric beds at SFGH by 
21, from the current number of 92 acute psychiatric beds to 71. 

• DPH projects that Federal Short Doyle Medi-Cal revenues to reimburse mental 
health services will be reduced by $2. 180.000 m FY' 2000-2001. Additionally. 
DPH estimates that SFGH will lose approximately $2.2 in Medi-Cal 
reimbursement revenues in FY 1999-2000 because Medi-Cal did not reimburse 
for sub-acute psychiatric patients being maintained in acute psychiatric beds at 
SFGH. 

• DPH has proposed $900,000 in the FY 2000-2001 DPH budget for supportive 
housing and neurobehavioral psychiatric L.ub-acute beds for physically and 
mentally ill patients and $433,000 for the funding of a behavioral/psychiatric 
ward at LHH. Additionally. DPH proposes to reallocate funds within the DPH 
budget to develop a short-stay rehabilitation ward at LHH. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

18 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 29, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

• DPH does not currently have plans for programs specifically targeted to 
psychiatric patients with substance abuse problems. However, existing DPH 
mental health programs have some capacity to serve psychiatric patients with 
substance abuse problems. 

• DPH has a number of programs for persons with dual diagnoses. Expansion of 
these programs would be a policy decision for the Mayor and the Board of 
Supervisors which would require additional funding. 




Harvev M. Rose 



cc: Supervisor Yee 

Supervisor Bierman 
President Ammiano 
Supervisor Becerril 
Supervisor Brown 
Supervisor Katz 
Supervisor Kaufman 
Supervisor Leno 
Supervisor Newsom 
Supervisor Teng 
Supervisor Yaki 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Legislative Analyst 
Erin McGrath 
Stephen Kawa 
Ted Lakev 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

19 



NAR-23-2B00 13=23 



SF DPH CFO 



City and County of San Francisco 




Department of Public Health 

Mitchell H. Katz, M.D. 
Director of Health 



March 23, 2000 

Memo To: 

From: 

Re: 



Harvev Rose 



Mitchell Katz, M.D. /JTI^UjU^ 




Hearing by Finance and Labor Committee regarding DPH Budget 
Proposal to Reduce Acute Psychiatric Inpatient Beds 



Thank you for having your staff prepare a budget summary for this important issue. Here 
is additional information regarding the proposal to reduce the number of inpatient 
psychiatric beds at San Francisco General Hospital for FY 00-01. 

The current budgeted census at SFGH Psychiatric Inpatient Services is 92. The 
Department's total costs related to the inpatient psychiatric services is S24 million. The 
direct costs associated with the program (including staff and physicians) is S15.2 million. 
Of this cost, only $3.0 will be reimbursed by MediCal in the current year, which is $2.2 
million less than budgeted even though over 57% of the patients are MediCal eligible. In 
the last year, over 60% of the MediCal inpatient days could not be billed to MediCal 
because the patients were no longer in need of acute care. We believe that SFGH could 
improve its discharge planning. The other non-profit hospitals in San Francisco that care 
for our patients have only 26% of inpatient days judged to not need acute care. Some 
patients stay on the inpatient ward for long periods of time because they are homeless, 
have substance abuse issues, or are difficult to place. 

For FY 00-01, the Department proposes to increase community programs in order to 
provide more options for patients upon discharge of acute care. As patients are 
discharged or transferred to more appropriate treatment settings in the community, the 
Department will reduce up to 22 inpatient beds, thereby reducing costs for expensive 
hospitalization that has no reimbursement. Inpatient expenses will be reduced by 
$3,000,000. Of this amount, $900,000 will be reallocated to create supportive housing 
and sub-acute alternatives for the patients. In addition, the Department is increasing 
board and care beds, creating a neurorologic-behavioral psychology unit at Laguna 
Honda, and opening up a new acute diversion residential program in the coinmunity in 
order to increase the treatment capacity for patients who no longer need acute care. 

This strategy, which has been endorsed by the Health Commission, is consistent with the 
Department's strategic direction of decreasing the need for acute hospitalization, which is 
very costly, and increasing the use of less expensive, less restrictive community settings. 



(415) 554-2600 



101 Grove Street 



San Francisco, CA 94102 



20 



MAR-23-2000 13:24 SF DPH CFO 



This strategy is also consistent with the direction of health care throughout the United 
States. The proposal will provide better treatment options for patients, and reduce costs 
for which no reimbursement exists. 

I will be available to answer any questions that you or the members of the Board of 
Supervisor's Finance and Labor committee have on the DPH budget. 



TOTAL P. 01 
21 



).s6i 



'>/<?< 




City and County of §an Francisco 

Meeting Minutes 

Finance and Labor Committee 

Members: Supervisors Leland Yee, Sue Merman, Tom Ammiano 
Clerk: Mary Red 



City Hall 

1 Dr. Carlton B. 

Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, CA 

94102^689 



Wednesday,, April 05, 2000 



10:00 AM 
Regular Meeting 



City Hall, Room 263 



Members Present: Leland Y. Yee, Sue Bierman, Tom Ammiano. 



Meeting Convened 

The meeting convened at 10:09 a.m. 

REGULAR AGENDA 



DOCUMENTS DEPT 

APR 1 1 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



000450 |Federal Day Care Funds] 

Supervisors Yee, Ammiano, Teng 

Hearing to consider the reasons why the City and County of San Francisco did not fully allocate federal child 
care funds necessitating a return of more than S6 million to the federal government and to discuss changes that 
should be implemented to ensure that all available child care funds - federal, state, and local - are fully 
allocated to those that need and are eligible for them. 

3/13/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. March 20, 2000 Supervisor Brown requested his name be 
removed as co-sponsor. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst. Will Lightboume. Director, Department of 
Human Sendees; Supervisor Yee: Supervisor Bierman; Supervisor Ammiano; Corel Reed, Director. Whitney 
Young Center; Marina Gillis; Susan Lavara. 
FILED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



000216 [Transportation for Welfare to Work participants] 
Supervisor Bierman 

Hearing to determine what, if any, measures have been adopted by Muni to ensure that those participating in 
the Welfare to Work programs are provided with adequate means of reaching their places of employment, 
especially transportation for nighttime employees, particularly those employed at the San Francisco Airport. 
1/31/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Transportation and Land Use Committee. 
3/28/00, TRANSFERRED to Finance and Labor Committee. 
CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at S:2i r\t M 4 h. N 



Finance mid l.ubor Committet 



Meeting Minutes 



Ifnl 5, 2000 



000315 [Cal-Works Prognmi] 
Supervisor Bierman 

Hearing to consider the currenl sums of the Cal-Works program, which is now in its second year. 
2/14/00, RECEIVED AND \SSIGNI D to Housing and Social Policy I ommiitec SPONSOR REQUESTS THAT THIS ITEM HI 
SCHEDUI I DFOR APRI1 18,2000, Ml I ITNG 

3 2H (in, i kansi I kki i) in Finance and I abor Committee Sponsor requests that item be calendared April 
/Irani in Committee Speakers Rebecca Vilkormerson; Homeless Prenatal P rogra m Jessica -trtiles. Irma 
Sanez. Lisa Garcia, Poor Magazine, Ann Politeo, Libby Kaiser, Falechia Harris, Nancy Frappier, Susie 
Mattos, Housing Specialist, Soma Bancs. Dianna Loggins, Eve Scotland, Bay Area Legal Aid, Sieve 
Bingham, National Center for Youth Law Michael McCarthy, Compass Community Services, Damu Sudi Alii, 
Bayview Hunters Point c hem Advot ate Projet t, Martina Gillis, Jackie Henderson. Hill Lightboume, 
Director, Department oj Human Services, Supervisor Ammiano, Supervisor Bierman, Supervisoi 
CONTINUED IO< Ml <>l I III < HAIR by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman. Ammiano 



000424 |Kood Service - Application and Permil Fee*] 

Ordinance amending Pari III of the San Francisco Municipal ( ode i Business and la\ Regulation Code) by 
amending Section 24° 1 1 to re\ ise permit fees lor temporary food operations at special events; amending Pan 
II of the San Francisco Municipal (Ode l I rattle (ode I by amending Section 806 to re\ ise Department of 
PuMk Health permit lees for food operations at street fairs, amending I'art II of the Municipal Code (Health 
Code) by amending Sections 451 and 452. to reorganize the section on applying tor permits to operate a food 
establishment, modify the definition of "special events " change the deadline for applications lor temporary 
food permits foi special events; and impose an extra tee for late applications for temporary permits. (Public 
Health Department) 

(Amends Business and Tax Regulation Code Section 24" 1 1 , amends Traffic Code Section 806; amends 
Health Code Sections 451 and 452 ) 

0, KUI l\ I D ami ASSICNI Dtol inanceand Labor Committee 
Continued to April I 'I :iitm 
CONTINUED by the following \oti-: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman. Ammiano 



00047° | Year 2000 Annual Joint Fundraising Drive Application Deadlines! 
Mayor 

Ordinance amending Section 16.93-4 of the San Francisco Administrative Code, which establishes March 1 of 
each year as the deadline for agencies who wish to participate in the Annual Joint Fundraising Drive to submit 
their applications, to allow any Mayor's fund to submit b\ April 15. 2000 their application to participate in the 
2000 Annual Drive. 

(Amends Section 16.93-4.) 

0, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to I inance and I abor Committee 
Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst: Alex Tourk. Mayor's Office. Supervisor I 
Ted Lakey, Deputy City Attorney 
RECOMMENDED b> the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at S~:2S nt on 4 n no 



Finance and Labor Committee Meeting Minutes April 5, 2000 



000466 [Proposed acquisition of 7,500 sq. ft. Palou/Phelps lots in the Bayview district for open space purposes] 

Resolution authorizing the acquisition of real property located in the Bayview District identified as Assessor's 
Block No. 5328, Lot Nos. 25, 28, and 29 for $1 15,500 from John L. Goodrich for open space purposes and 
adopting findings pursuant to Planning Code Section 101.1. (Real Estate Department) 
3/15/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Tony DeLucchi, Director of Property, Real 
Estate Department. 

RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



SPECIAL ORDER - 11:00 A.M. 



000328 [Public Financing of Election Campaigns) 
Supervisor Ammiano 

Ordinance amending Administrative Code by adding Sections 16.549-1 through 16.549.18 to provide for 
public financing of election campaigns. (Ethics Commission) 

(Fiscal impact; Adds Sections 16.549-1 through 16.549.18.) 

2/18/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Supervisor Ammiano; Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Supervisor Yee; Ginny Vida, 

Executive Director, Ethics Commission; Naomi Starkman, Ethics Commission; Claire Sylvia, Deputy City 

Attorney. Paul Melbostad, Ethics Commission. In Support: Jim Knox, California Common Cause (CCC); 

Rebecca Silverberg, Coalition for S. F. Neighborhoods (CSFN); Steven Currier; Marie Harrison; Bud Wilson, 

Greater West Portal; Joan Girardot, President. CSFN; Bill Rangfehl. CCC; Joan Kingeiy, CCC. Amendment 

of the Whole continued to April 12, 2000. 

AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW TITLE. 

Ordinance amending Administrative Code by adding Sections 16.549-1 through 16.549.18 to provide for 
public financing of election campaigns and to add Sections 16.550.1 through 16.550-10 to provide for 
increased disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures. (Ethics Commission) 

(Fiscal impact; Adds Sections 16.549-1 through 1 6.549. 18;and Sections 16.550-1 through 16.550.10.) 
CONTINUED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



ADJOURNMENT 

The meeting adjourned at 1:04 p.m. 



City and County of San Francisco 3 Printed at $:2S PM on 4 (I 00 



Susan Horn 

Government Documents Section 
Main Library 



s/oo 



CITY AND COUNTY 




OF SAN FRANCISCO 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 
FAX (415) 252-0461 



TO: -Finance and Labor Committee 

FROM: Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: April 5, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 1 - File 00-0450 



March 31, 2000 DOCUMENT SDEPT 

APR - 3 2009 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Department: Department of Human Services (DHS) 

Item: Hearing to consider the reasons why the City and County 

of San Francisco did not fully allocate Federal child care 
funds, necessitating a return of more than $6 million to 
the Federal government and to discuss changes that 
should be implemented to ensure that all available child 
care funds - Federal, State and local - are fully allocated 
to the residents of San Francisco that need and are 
eligible for such child care funds. 

Description: Mr. Trent Rhorer of the Department of Human Services 

(DHS) advises that participants in the State CalWORKS 
Program who are engaged in qualified work activities 
(e.g., job training, employment, education) can receive 
subsidized childcare benefits, ranging from $368 to $1,133 
per month per child, depending on the age of the child and 
the type of care provided. According to Mr. Rhorer, 
CalWORKS is a Federal and State funded Program thai 
is operated through the State Department of Social 
Services. The following descriptive information responds 
to the various questions cited in the proposed hearing 
notice by the Board of Supervisors. 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 5, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



FY 1998-99 allocations and expenditures: Mr. Rhorer 
advises that in FY 1998-99, DHS received an original 
allocation of $5.9 million from the CalWORKS Program 
together with a $2 million reallocation of State funds from 
FY 1997-98 for CalWORKS Stage 1 (participants 
receiving cash aid) childcare subsidies, in addition to a 
$2.6 million allocation of State funds for CalWORKS 
Stage 2 (participants who have left CalWORKS cash aid) 
childcare subsidies, for a total initial allocation of $10.5 
million. In November of 1998, DHS realized that the 
$10.5 million of childcare subsidy funds would not be 
sufficient for the entire fiscal year and the City applied for 
$13.9 million of additional Stage 1 childcare funds from a 
State-wide Childcare Reserve Fund of $183 million, which 
was established for those counties that had a higher 
childcare utilization rate than was originally projected for 
this new State Program. According to Mr. Rhorer, the 
State-wide utilization rate of such childcare subsidies is 
currently approximately 25 percent of those persons 
eligible, but in San Francisco the childcare subsidy 
utilization rate is approximately 50 percent. 

Of the additional $13.9 million which the State 
authorized the City and County of San Francisco to draw 
funds against, the City spent approximately $7 million in 
FY 1998-99, for a total of approximately $17.5 million 
($10.5 million initial allocation plus $7 million additional 
expenditures) in childcare subsidies in FY 1998-99. The 
remaining authorization of $6.9 million ($13.9 million 
authorized by the State Less $7 million expended by the 
County in FY 1998-99) was rolled over for use by San 
Francisco for childcare subsidies in FY 1999-2000. Ms. 
Michelle Rutherford of DHS reports that San Francisco 
applied for the additional $13.9 million of childcare 
subsidies in FY 1998-99, because (1) DHS was not sure if 
the State would allocate all of the $13.9 million in funds 
requested, and (2) DHS knew that the unused funds could 
be reallocated for childcare subsidies in FY 1999-2000. 
Therefore. Mr. Rhorer advises that the City did not 
actually return any childcare funds to the State, but 
instead, reallocated the authorized but unspent $6.9 
million of childcare funds for use in FY 1999-2000. 

FY 1999-2000 allocations and expenditures: In FY 

1999-2000. Mr. Rhorer reports that San Francisco will 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 5, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

expend a total of approximately $18.1 million of childcare 
subsidies for Stage 1 participants and $8 million for Stage 
2 participants for a total of approximately $26.1 million of 
childcare funds, which includes the $6.9 million of 
reallocated funds from FY 1998-99. This $26.1 million 
allocated for child care for FY 1990-2000 represents a 49 
percent increase from the $17.5 million expended for child 
care in FY 1998-99. 

Existing Notification of Childcare Subsidies: 

According to Mr. Rhorer, the existing protocol to notify 
participants of the availability of subsidized childcare 
services includes: (1) a preliminary overall orientation for 
each CalWORKS participant, which takes approximately 
four hours, and includes a presentation by the Children's 
Council representative who discusses the childcare 
subsidy program and the options for types of childcare; (2) 
individual casemanagers, who work with each 
CalWORKS participant and provide documents, which 
must be signed by each participant that includes 
additional information regarding childcare needs and 
subsidies, and allows up to five years of childcare 
subsidies for those persons eligible; (3) notification by 
mail regarding continued eligibility for childcare subsidies 
for up to two years for those participants who leave 
CalWORKS cash aid; and (4) a DHS contract with Parent 
Voices, a non-profit organization, which provides direct 
outreach and childcare subsidy information for 
participants that leave the CalWORKS Program early. 
Mr. Rhorer advises that San Francisco is the only County 
in the State that provides this type of contractual 
outreach program for CalWORKS participants. According 
to Ms. Rutherford, information and notification of 
childcare subsidies is currently provided by both DHS and 
Parent Voices in four languages: (1) English, (2) Spanish, 
(3) Chinese (both Mandarin and Cantonese), and (4) 
Russian. In addition. Mr. Rhorer advises that individual 
DHS casemanagers are available to translate information 
for particular clients, when necessary. 

State-wide Comparisons for San Francisco: 

According to Mr. Rhorer, San Francisco has the highest 
State-wide use of such childcare subsidies with 
approximately 50 percent of the eligible children in 
CalWORKS families currently benefiting from these Stale 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 5, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

childcare subsidies, as compared to a State-wide average 
of 25 percent. Mr. Rhorer further advises that San 
Francisco's childcare subsidy notification and outreach 
efforts must be effective relative to what other counties in 
the State are doing because San Francisco currently 
receives a disproportionate share of the State's childcare 
subsidy funds. According to Mr. Rhorer, although San 
Francisco has approximately one percent of the State- 
wide childcare caseload, San Francisco has been allocated 
9.7 percent of the State-wide childcare subsidy Reserve 
Funds over the past two years. Ms. Rutherford reports 
that currently there are approximately 3,000 children in 
San Francisco receiving CalWORKS subsidies for 
childcare. 

Future Opportunities: Nevertheless, Ms. Rutherford 
advises that DHS is continuing to explore other ways to 
improve and expand the current methods of notifying 
current CalWorks participants and former recipients of 
the availability of subsidized childcare services. For 
example, Ms. Rutherford reports that DHS, together with 
the Children's Council, is looking at other marketing 
approaches, such as (1) specific targeted efforts to families 
that are resistanl to using subsidies, for which Providian 
Bank has offered in-kind support or (2) using videos 
which could provide previous clients' testimonials and 
experiences regarding childcare subsidies. Ms. Rutherford 
reports that in Fiscal Year 2000-2001, DHS will continue 
to insure that the State subsidized CalWORKS childcare 
services are utilized and anticipates that San Francisco 
will receive comparable baseline funding of $26.1 million, 
as in the current year Ms. Rutherford also advises that 
the State anticipates setting aside a State-wide Reserve 
Fund of $150 million for those counties that need 
additional childcare subsidies in FY 2000-01, from which 
San Francisco could again be allocated additional 
childcare funds, if required. 

DHS, State and Children Council Responses: In 

response to a March 13. 2000 article and March 14. 2000 
editorial. Mr. Will Lightbourne, the Executive Director of 
the Department of Human Services sent the attached 
letter (Attachment I) on March 15, 2000 to the Editor of 
the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper, addressing many 
of the above issues regarding childcare funding in San 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 5, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Francisco. In addition, in response to another San 
Francisco Chronicle article on March 16. 2000, Ms. Blanca 
Barna of the State Department of Social Services sent the 
attached letter (Attachment II) on March 20, 2000 to the 
San Francisco Chronicle reiterating many of these same 
points. Similarly, the Children's Council of San Francisco, 
that directly manages San Francisco's CalWORKS 
childcare subsidies through a contract with DHS, 
submitted the attached letter to the Editor of the San 
Francisco Chronicle on March 17, 2000 (Attachment III). 

Summary: In FY 1998-99, San Francisco received an 
initial allocation of $10.5 million for CalWORKS childcare 
subsidies and realizing this was not sufficient, applied for 
an additional allocation of $13.9 million of such subsidies. 
Of the additional $13.9 million, San Francisco spent 
approximately $7 million, for a total childcare subsidy 
expenditure of $17.5 million in FY 1998-99 and carried 
forward the remaining unspent $6.9 million for FY 1999- 
2000. 

In FY 1999-2000, San Francisco is expected to spend a 
total of $26.1 million, including the $6.9 million of 
reallocated funds from FY' 1998-99. This $26.1 million 
represents a 49 percent increase from the $17.5 million 
childcare subsidy expenditure in FY 1998-99. 

DHS advises that San Francisco has the highest State- 
wide use of such subsidies, benefiting approximately 50 
percent of the eligible children, as compared to a State- 
wide average of 25 percent. San Francisco received 9.7 
percent of the State-wide Reserve Funds for childcare 
subsidies over the past two years, although San Francisco 
accounts for only approximately one percent of the State- 
wide childcare caseload. 

Nevertheless, DHS is continuing to explore ways to 
improve their methods of notifying current and former 
CalWORKS recipients about the availability of subsidized 
childcare services. Attached letters from DHS, the State 
and the Children's Council reiterate these issues and 
refute articles and an editorial that recently appeared in 
the San Francisco Chronicle. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment I 



Pap,e I of 2 

City and County of San Francisco Department of Human Service- 




March 15,2000 



The Editor 

San Francisco Chronicle 

5 th and Mission Streets 

San Francisco, California 94103 

Dear Editor: 

In your March 13 article and March 14 editorial on child care subsidies in San Francisco, you 
erroneously suggest: 

1. San Francisco "returned" $6.5 million in unused CalWORKs Stage 1 Child Care subsidies in 
1998/1999. 

2. San Francisco's childcare subsidy utilization rate is low. 

3. San Francisco has made inadequate efforts to notify eligible participants of the availability of 
childcare subsidies. 

4. At least two families, mentioned in the article, somehow went unserved and unassisted. 

I would like to make your readers aware of the following: 

No funds for child care were returned to federal or state sources. For fiscal year 1998-99, the 
State allocated San Francisco S5. ( ) million for welfare-to-work childcare subsidies. We projected 
this amount would be too low, and asked for and received a set-aside of an additional SI 3.9 
million from the State's SI S3 million child care reserve. The additional set-aside was available 
on a multi-year rollover basis. 

In fiscal year 1998-99, we expended the entire original S5.9 million allocation, and additionally 
spent (and therefore drew down) about $7 million of the set-aside. The remaining S6 million 
from the set-aside was re-allocated to San Francisco for use in fiscal year 1999-00. 

In FY 99/00, we budgeted SI 8.1 million in childcare subsidies, and spent S8.7 million during the 
first half of the current fiscal year. Our projections indicate that we will spend the entire S18.1 
million by the end of the fiscal year. 

San Francisco's child care utilization rate is twice that of the statewide average. You should be 
aware that the State budget, based on statewide experience, assumes a 25% utilization rate. We 
intend to continue to increase the utilization rate, but we are already well ahead of the state as a 
whole. 

San Francisco makes repeated efforts to notify recipients of their child care options. The 
Chronicle report implies that the only method of notifying clients of the availability of childcare 
subsidies is through the initial CalWORKs Orientation, in which childcare is just one of a 
number of services, benefits and requirements discussed with participants. In fact, in addition to 



Attachment I 
Page 2 of 2 



the Orientation, discussion of child care options and services is an integral part of the 
development of the individual's employment plan, and at the time the plan is signed by the 
participant, each participant signs a statement acknowledging that they have been advised of the 
availability of child care subsidies. 

As an additional step, San Francisco has funded Parent Voices, a local community advocacy 
group, to contact those individuals we identified as working or having left aid, and who might 
not have been fully briefed on child care services. Under this process we mailed informational 
materials to the clients and then had Parent Voices follow-up with contacts. According to 
preliminary data from a January 2000 survey of our CalWORKs caseload conducted by the Child 
Care Law Center, 94 percent of respondents are aware of the availability of child care subsidies. 

The Chronicle reporter was provided all of the above information. 

Two cases were profiled in the Chronicle story. In one case, the person was not a CalWORKs 
participant, and therefore would not in any way have been eligible for CalWORKs childcare 
subsidies. In the other case the family had left aid before enrolling in CalWORKs; however, in 
this case, the family had been subsequently contacted in 1999 and was made aware of the fact 
that they could still be eligible for child care assistance. 

I hope that the Chronicle will devote as much space to returning to our staff and partner agencies 
their good names as you spent taking it away. 

Sincerely, 



WILL LIGHTBOURNE 

Executive Director 

San Francisco Department of Human Services 



MAR-29-2000 10=29 



DEPT OF HUMHN SUCS 



Attachment II 4 i! 4 ii, 9 ^ 



V.W*' 




Letter to the Editor 



CDSS 



CALIFORNIA 
DEPARTMENT OE 
SOCIAL SERVICES 



March 20, 2000 

Sar. Francisco Chronicle 

901 Mission Street 

San Francisco, CA 94103-2988 

Dear Editor. 



I feel compelled to set the record straight about the "misuse" of funds 
referred to in Tom Zoellner's article entitled "Misuse of Day Care Funds Denied - 
S- officials defend decision to send money back to government", (March 16, 
2000). First, there was no "misuse" of funds; in fact, the San Francisco County 
Department of Human Services should be commended for their efforts in making 
available childcare subsidies to the thousands of mothers that are currently in the 
CalWORKs program. Moreover, San Francisco can be proud of the fact that on 
any given month, there are about 2,200 children in quality day care homes, and 
centers throughout the San Francisco Bay Area while their mothers are in job 
tra ning, education classes, or at their place of employment, in an effort to get off 
welfare. 

Secondly, absolutely no 'unspent child care funds" were returned to the 
state or federal government by San Francisco county as Mr. Zoellner claims In 
fact, the county spent the entire $5.9 million that was originally budgeted to them 
in Fiscal Year 1998-99. As a result, they received an additional $13.9 million to 
implement more childcare programs to meet the growing demand for childcare 
subsidies by this population. San Francisco County spent $7 million of this 
adcitional money, thus leaving $6.9 million which was reallocated to the County 
this fiscal year 

In closing, I encourage Mr. Zoellner to visrt some of the wonderful child 
care facilities and report on how the childcare subsidy programs in San Francisco 
have contributed to the successful outcomes realized by many mothers that did 
not liave this option prior to the CalWORKs program. 



Sincerely, 



Blanca E. Barna 

Deputy Director 

Publ.c Affairs and Outreach 

California Department of Social Services 



744 P Street • Sacramento, CA 95814 • Phone (916) 657-2268 • Fax (916) 657-2281 



TOThC P. 04 



MflR-29-2000 10=29 



DEPT OF HUNAN SUCS 



Attachment III 




Children's 

Council of 

San Francisco 



March 17, 2000 



Letters to the Editor 
San Francisco Chronicle 
901 Mission Street 
San Francisco, CA 94 1 03 

To the Editor. 

It is amazing that, after weeks of research, reporter Tom Zoellner managed to get the child care 
story (March 13) so completely backwards. 

His basic premise was that the city is doing a poor job of informing women about their subsidies, 
and therefore had to return CalWorks child care money to the stale. 

The opposite is the case. San Francisco is enrolling families in CalWorks child care subsidies at 
a rate that is twice the state average. Because this rate is also twice what the state expected, our 
state allocation of subsidy funds was dangerously low. The Department of Human Services 
applied for and gained additional money to handle our rate of enrollment- including enough to 
be re-allocated to the next year. 

It is not surprising that the only two parents Zoellner could locate (after weeks of effort) to 
illustrate his backwards version of reality do not support his story. One was never eligible for 
CalWoriis, and the records show that the other was informed about the child care program. She 
declined to participate for her own reasons. 

Zoellner was biased in his approach to this story. Parents and others who were interviewed say 
that he was not objective and would not listen to what they were telling him. More disturbing is 
that the Chronicle' s Editorial Board accepted his zealotry without checking 

The recent sale of the Examiner is bringing into question again the Chronicle's national 
reputation as little better man a tabloid. Reporting like this doesn't help. There are many 
important issues in the child care subsidy story that were entirely missed by this wrong-headed 
coverage. Try again. 

Sincerely, 



LinneaKlee 

Executive Director 

Children's Council of San Francisco 



Downtown Office 

S7S Sutter Sucet, 2nd Floor 

S»n Frmciico, CA9410J-11C J 

Phone 4L5.243.070O 

Fax 415.243.4414 



Biywiew-Hunar't Point Office 

1J19 £vuu Avenue, 2nd Floo* 

Su Francos, CA 04124-l70f 

Phocc 415.920.7280 

Far 415-826J678 



Million Dunrier 0<K« 

2601 Miiiioo Street, Suitr 600 

Sin FruaKs, CA WllO-JUO 

Phone; 41J.920.7282 

Fbe 415 .550.6839 



Memo to Finance and Committee 

April 5, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 4 - File 00-0424 

Department: 

Item: 



Description: 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 

Ordinance amending Part III of the San Francisco 
Municipal Code (business and Tax Regulation Code) by 
amending Section 249.11 to revise permit fees for 
temporary food operations at special events; amending Part 
II of the San Francisco Municipal Code (Traffic Code) by 
amending Section 806 to revise Department of Public 
Health permit fees for food operations at street fairs; 
amending Part II of the San Francisco Municipal Code 
(Health Code) by amending Sections 451 and 452 to: (a) 
reorganize the section on applying for permits to operate a 
food establishment, (b) modify the definition of "special 
events," (c) change the deadline for applications for 
temporary food permits for special events, and (d) impose 
an extra fee for late applications for temporary permits. 

As the local health enforcement agency, the DPH has the 
authority to enforce the California Uniform Retail Food 
Facilities Law (CURFFL). In this role, the DPH, 
Knvironmental Health Section's Special Events program 
issues permits and inspects businesses that sponsor or 
conduct temporary food or beverage sales or distributions. 
Activities associated with this oversight role include 
reviewing permit application and food preparation, issuing 
required permits, conducting routine and follow up 
inspections, and providing outreach to businesses to assure 
compliance with CURFFL. Regulated businesses currently 
pay tees to the city based upon the number of temporary 
food booths per day of opera I 

The current San Francisco Municipal Code sets forth 
procedures to apply to the Department of Public Health for 
food preparation and service establishment permits. The 
Municipal Code also requires a temporary food service 
permit to serve food at special events including street fairs, 
and sets forth fees and deadlines for permit applications 
and for the permits themselves. 

The proposed amendment would, beginning FA* 2000-2001. 
(1) increase DPH's filing fee for the sponsor of a "special 
event" at which food will be served, including street fairs: 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Committee 

April 5, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



(2) establishes new application and permit fees for 
temporary food permits for special events based on the 
classification of food being served as either "high" (prepared 
on site) or "low"(pre-packaged) in potential health hazard; 

(3) increase filing, application, and permit fees by 3% each 
year beginning FY 2001-2002 subject to prior review by the 
Controller, submission of program costs by DPH, and a 
report to the Board of Supervisors that details program 
costs and anticipated revenues; (4) modify the definition of 
"special events 1 " to be slightly more inclusive for purposes 
of temporary food permit applications; (5) impose a 50% 
late charge if applications and filing fees for temporary food 
permits are not received by the DPH by at least 14 days 
before the event, and forecloses approval of applications if 
those applications and filing fees are not received prior to 
seven days before the event, and (6) reorganize the 
applicable Municipal Code sections on applications for food 
service permits, including temporary food permits to 
accommodate the changes above. 

According to DPH, the permit fees are intended to fully 
recover the cost of this program. The Board of Supervisors 
last increased the program fees for Special Events in July 
of 1988 (file 341-88). According to Mr. James Gillen, Senior 
Administrative Analyst at DPH, the revenues from Special 
Event fees realized by the City have consistently been less 
than the City costs incurred in connection with such events. 

Attachment I, provided by DPH, contains a list of all 
current fees applicable to this legislation. Including the 
existing fees, the proposed fees, the amount of the proposed 
fee increases, the percentage fee increases, the amount of 
the current annual revenues, and the amount of the 
proposed annual revenues if the proposed fee increases are 
approved. As noted in Attachment I, the total increase in 



1 The current Section 249.11 of the Municipal Code reads: "Special Events' means any 
organized collection of food purveyors operating individually or as a group from within 
temporary facilities for a maximum 25 days within a 90-day period upon private or public 
property." The new ordinance would read: "Special Events' means any organized collection 
of food purveyors operating individually or collaboratively out of approved temporary or 
mobile food faculties at a fixed location for a period of time not to exceed 25 days in a 90-day 
period in conjunction with a single, weekly, or monthly community event as defined in the 
California Health and Safety Code Section 113895(b)." 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

11 



Memo to Finance and Committee 

April 5, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Comments: 



Recommendation: 



ia Laour ^omiuiLietJ meeting 

fee revenue would be 187 percent if this proposed ordinance 
is approved. 

1. Attachment II, provided by DPH, details the City's FY 
2000-2001 costs for regulation of temporary food operations 
at special events which are projected to be $173,185, or 
$1,805 less than the projected revenues of $174,990. 
According to Mr. Gillen, if revenues exceed costs, DPH will 
make an adjustment to its proposed annual request for a 
three percent fee increase. DPH will request an adjusted 
rate of increase to ensure that program revenues closely 
match program costs. Based on the data presented in 
Attachments I and II, total projected FY 2000-2001 
expenditures of $173,185 would exceed revenues based on 
current fees by $112,198 if this proposed ordinance is not 
approved ($173,185 in expenditure less $60,507 in revenue 
based on current fees). 

2. Attachment III. provided by DPH, contains a list of the 
counties that were surveyed by DPH for their fee structures 
regarding temporary food operations. According to Mr. 
Gillen, these counties were surveyed to provide a basis for 
comparison, and to ensure that, relative to other counties, 
the fees required by the City and County of San Francisco 
would not be excessive. 

3. According to Mr. Gillen. annual fee increases of up to 
three percent would be reviewed by the Controller, and 
reported to the Board of Supervisors. As such, separate 
Board of Supervisors approval of future fee increases would 
not be required. If the proposed ordinance is approved, new 
fee revenues would be included in DPH s FY 2000-2001 
budget. 

Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for 
the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment I 



Table 2. Current (99-00) and Proposed (00-01) Fee Schedule 



Estimated Current Proposed Percent Proposed 

Inventory Fees Fees Increase/Decrease Revenue/Year 



Application Fees: 

1. Event Sponsor 

2. Sponsored Low 
Hazard Operator 

3. Sponsored High 
Hazard Operator 

4. Unsponsored 
LowHazard 
Operator 

5. Unsponsored 
High Hazard 
Operator 

Permit Fees 

6. Low Hazard 
Operation 



7. High Hazard 
Operation 



Total Fee Revenue 



210 

369 

1116 

41 

124 



$50 

No 
Charge 

No 
Charge 

S50 



S50 



S100 


100% 


S21,000/year 


$20 


N/A 


$7,380/year 


S46 


N/A 


$51,336/year 


$20 


(60%) 


$820/year 


$46 


(8%) 


$5,704/year 



$25 1 st 


$35 up to 2 


day/ 


days 


$10 each 


$10 each 


day 


day 


$25 1 st 


$60 up to 2 


day/ 


davs 


$10 each 


$20 each 


day 


day 


$60,987 


$174,990 



40% 



140% 



187% 



$14,350/year 



$72,600/year 



Attachment II 



Table 1. Projected FY 2000-01 Special Events Program Costs 



Budget Category 


FTE 


Annual Expense 


6122 Sr. Health Inspector 


0.96 


75,695 


6120 Health Inspector 


0.31 


22,720 


6124 Principal Health Inspector 


0.15 


12,724 


1426 Clerk Typist 


0.25 


10,727 


Mandatory Fringe Benefits 




30,466 


Prorated operating costs 




20,854 


Projected Program Total Cost 




5173,185 



Annual Fees Collected 
Expected Costs Not Recovered 
Projected Fees Collected FY 00/01 
Projected Over-Collection 



S 60,987 
5112,198 
5174,990 
5 1,805 



Attachment III 



— 


a 










C5 


■j) 



















O &o 






£ 



o 


o 


o 


U 


fcn 


CZ 






r~* 


r- 


P 


J_l 




,o 














u 


C3 


on 


U 






j^ 


o 


o 


13 






>■ 


O 


Trl 


_aj 


— 


o 


c^ 


00 


O 


' , 


o 




r— 


w ' 


oc 


>-> 




o 



=3 00 



00 






O 


_£; 


3 


.o 


:5 


o 


=5 


</-| 


o 


o 


O 


cn 






m 


b<5 


Vt 


y? 


v? 



fc, -* ~ 






O o c 



- ^o o r^ 
^ x i^ ^ 
^£ ie «^ c; 



— -j 5 y 



c 



fa 



— c_ 



CJ 



U 



u 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 5, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 5 - File 00-0479 

Department: 

Item: 



Description: 



Comment: 



Department of Administrative Services (DAS) 

Amending Section 16.93-4 of the San Francisco Administrative 
Code, which establishes March 1 of each year as the deadline 
for agencies who wish to participate in the annual joint 
fundraising drive to submit their applications, to allow any 
such agencies to submit by April 15, 2000, their application to 
participate in the 2000 Annual Drive. 

Section 16.93-3 of the Administrative Code requires the 
Department of Administrative Services (a) to review all 
applications from charitable organizations which request to 
participate in the City's Annual Joint Fundraising Drive, and 
(b) to recommend to the Board of Supervisors charitable 
organizations which qualify to participate in the City's Annual 
Joint Fundraising Drive in accordance with criteria set forth in 
Section 16.93-2 of the Administrative Code. 

The proposed amendment would amend Section 16.93-4 of the 
Administrative Code, extending the deadline for this year only 
from March 1, 2000 to April 15, 2000. This amendment would 
allow charitable organizations that failed to meet the March 1 st 
deadline an opportunity to apply to the Board of Supervisors in 
a timely manner for participation in the 2000 Annual Drive. 
According to Mr. Alex Tourk of the Mayor's office, the Private 
Industry Council, a Long time participant in the Annual Drives, 
requested an extension of the deadline because leadership 
changes within their organization had rendered them unable to 
he March 1 " deadline. 

The Board of Supervisors approved extended deadlines such 
as the deadline affected by the subject ordinance for Annual 
Fundraising Drives for 1989.1995. and 1997. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 5, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 6 - File 00-0466 
Department: 

Item: 

Location: 

Seller: 

Size: 

Purchase Price: 

Source of Funds: 

Description: 



Recreation and Park Department (RPD) 
Department of Administrative Services (DAS) 

Resolution authorizing acquisition of real property located 
in the Bayview District for Open Space purposes and 
adopting findings pursuant to City Planning Code Section 
101.1. 

Assessor's Block No. 5328 lot numbers 25, 28 and 29 

Mr. John L. Goodrich 

7,500 square feet 

$115,500, or $15.40 per square foot 

Open Space Funds approved in the FY 1996-97 budget 

Approval of the subject resolution would authorize the 
acquisition of the subject Property, Block 5328 lots 25, 28 
and 29, from Mr. John L. Goodrich for $115,500 for Open 
Space purposes. The lots are located at 1878, 1890, and 
1894 Quesada Ave, respectively. 

The subject Property, consisting of vacant land, is located 
in the Bayview District near the intersection of Palou 
Avenue and Phelps Street, between Quesada Avenue and 
Newhall Street. The three lots are 2,500 square feet each, 
with dimensions of 100 feet x 25 feet, and are located 
above Palou Avenue. The Property slopes steeply upward 
in a southerly direction toward Bridgeview Drive. The 
Attachment, provided by DAS, is a map of the subject 
property and surrounding area. 

The Recreation and Park Commission approved this 
acquisition for Open Space purposes on May 1, 1997. 

Acquisition was initially included in the program 
contained in the "General Manager's Report: San 
Francisco Park and Open Space Program" for FY 1996-97, 
adopted May 1, 1997 by the Recreation and Park 
Commission. The Department of City Planning reported 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

in 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 5, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting 

by letter dated August 1, 1997 that the proposed 
acquisition is in conformity with the General Plan and 
consistent with Planning Code Section 101.1 

If the subject resolution is approved, it will be the second 
purchase of property in Block 5328 made by RPD. The 
first consisted of a purchase of 12 lots in 1998, done as a 
part of the San Francisco Park and Open Space Program. 
The Board of Supervisors approved the acquisition of that 
property. 

Comment: 1. According to Mr. Anthony DeLucchi, Director of 

Property, the Real Estate Division of DAS, his 
department conducted an appraisal of the subject 
property, and has concluded that the proposed purchase 
price of $115,500, or approximately $15.40 per square 
foot, represents the fair market value of the property. The 
owner of the property has agreed to the valuation and 
entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale. 

2. According to Mr. John Panieri of DAS, in April of 1997 
the Department of Public Works (DPW) conducted a site 
assessment and remediation examination of the subject 
property. DPW determined that no hazardous materials 
were present. 

3. According to Ms. Deborah Learner of the Recreation 
and Park Department (RPD), if the proposed purchax i- 
approved, the Property will be considered a Significant 
Natural Resource Area because the Property contains 
valuable habitat. including a rich native plant 
community. Ms. Learner reports that the Property will 
remain Open Space and that RPD improvement plans are 
limited to invasive weed control and possibly some 
indigenous re-vegetation on the Property, pursuant to the 
Recreation and Park Commission's adopted policy to 
pi'eserve and manage Significant Natural Resource Areas. 
Ms. Learner reports that the maintenance expenses 
associated with the subject site will be funded by annual 
Open Space Fund appropriations that are allocated for 
maintenance. 

4. According to Ms. Alice Chong of the Assessor's Office, 
the assessed valuation of the subject Property to be 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 5, 2000 Finance Committee Meeting 

acquired is $1,728. Based on the 1999-2000 tax rate of 
$1.13 per $100 of assessed valuation, the annual taxes to 
be paid to the City on the property would be 
approximately $19.50. Once the City acquires the 
Property, such taxes would no longer be paid to the City. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for 

the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

14 



Attachment 



828 



PflLOU 



AVE. 




Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 5, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 7 - File 00-0328 



Department: 
Item: 



Description: 



Ethics Commission 

Ordinance amending the San Francisco Administrative 
Code to add Article XIIE, Sections 16.549-1 through 
16.549-18 to provide for public financing of election 
campaigns. 

The proposed ordinance would provide public funds from 
a newly established Election Campaign Fund to partially 
defray the election campaign costs of each candidate for 
the Board of Supervisors who, according to the Ethics 
Commission: 



Comments: 



(1) is eligible to hold office as a member of the Board of 
Supervisors; 

(2) has received at least $5,000 in contributions of 
between $10 and $100 each from at least 50 individual 
(not corporate) contributors who are San Francisco 
residents 1 ; 

(3) is opposed by another candidate who is eligible to 
receive public financing, or has received contributions 
or made expenditures of at least $5,000; and 

(4) agrees to: 

• limit his or her personal contributions to his or her 
own campaign to $10,000; 

• limit his or her campaign spending per general 
election to $75,000; 

• participate in at least one debate with his or her 
opponents; and 

• prove compliance with the proposed ordinance's 
requirements. 

Additional public funds would be available to a candidate 
who must also contest a run-off election, so long as he or 
she limits his or her run-off election campaign spending to 
$20,000. 

1. According to Ms. Naomi Starkman of the Ethics 
Commission, currently no municipalities in the United 



1 While a candidate can accept contributions of up to $500 per contributor under the Campaign 
Finance Reform Ordinance, only the first $100 from each contributor would count toward eligibility 
for public funds under the proposed ordinance. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



21 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 5, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



States have full public financing of election campaigns, 
while four States have approved, but not implemented, 
full public financing programs 2 . However, a number of 
United States municipalities and States, and the Federal 
Government, operate partial public financing programs. 

2. Attachments I and II to this report were provided by 
Ms. Starkman. Attachment I explains (a) the alternative 
available funding sources for the proposed public 
financing program, (b) the projected costs of partial public 
financing of the election campaigns which will be held in 
FYs 1999-2000, 2001-2002, and 2003-2004, and (c) the 
projected costs to the Ethics Commission of administering 
the proposed public financing program. Attachment II 
provides more detailed projections for the cost of a public 
financing program under different scenarios. 

3. Although the Ethics Commission proposes funding the 
subject program from General Fund revenues, it has 
conducted research on the following alternative methods 
of funding the program: (a) a surcharge on City-imposed 
business taxes, (b) a surcharge on City-imposed property 

es, and (c) voluntary taxpayer contributions. 
Attachment I, Part II, explains the issues associated with 
these alternative funding option.-. 

4. According to Ms. Julia Moll of the City Attorney's 
Office, the proposed ordinance would provide authority for 
the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors to appropriate 
sufficient monies to (a) an Election Campaign Fund 

iblished under the proposed ordinance to partially 
defray the election campaign costs of all eligible 
candidates, and to (b) the Ethics Commission for 
administration costs related to the public financing 
program. However, according to Ms. Moll, such 
appropriations could only be required by a voter-approved 
Charter amendment. M>. Moll states that this is because 
only voter-approved Charter amendments, rather than 
ordinances, can limit the discretion of the Board of 
Supervisors and the Mayor regarding annual 
appropriations. Ms. Moll states that if the Mayor and the 



- The four States which have approved full pubhc financing programs are .Arizona, Maine. 
Massachusetts, and Vermont. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 5, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Board of Supervisors do not appropriate sufficient funds, 
the public financing program would not operate. 

5. The maximum amount of public funds that a 
candidate for the Board of Supervisors could receive 
under the proposed public financing program would be 
$45,000 per general election and $17,000 per run-off 
election from the proposed Election Campaign Fund. In 
FY 2000-2001, the Ethics Commission projects that the 
proposed Election Campaign Fund would require a 
General Fund appropriation for the November 7, 2000 
general election of (a) a range between $990,000 and 
$1,980,000 for the 11 Board of Supervisors districts being 
contested, and (b) a range between $17,000 and $748,000 
for related runoff elections, for (c) a total appropriation 
ranging between $1,007,000 and $2,728,000. These 
ranges assume, in terms of eligibility for partial public 
financing of election campaigns, that there are between 
two and four eligible candidates per district in the general 
election, and either one or two eligible candidates per 
district in the run-off elections. Attachment II, Tables 1 
to 3, provides public financing program cost estimates for 
a range of November 7, 2000 election scenarios. 

6. Depending on the outcome of a lottery held during the 
first meeting of the new Board of Supervisors in 2001, 
either: 

• the five even-numbered Board of Supervisor districts 
will be contested in 2002 and every four years 
subsequently, and the six odd-numbered Board of 
Supervisor districts will be contested in 2004 and 
every four years subsequently; or 

• the six odd-numbered. Board of Supervisor districts 
will be contested in 2002 and every four years 
subsequently, and the five even-numbered Board of 
Supervisor districts will be contested in 2004 and 
every four years subsequently. 

7. For a five district election, the proposed public 
financing campaign would have an estimated cost range 
of (a) between $450,000 and $900,000 for the general 
election, and (b) between $17,000 and $340,000 for run-off 
elections, for (c) a total cost range of between $467,000 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 5, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



and $1,240,000 (see Attachment II, Table 4). Again, these 
ranges assume, in terms of eligibility for partial public 
financing of election campaigns, that there are between 
two and four eligible candidates per district in the general 
election, and either one or two eligible candidates per 
district in the run-off elections. 

8. For a six district election, the proposed public 
financing campaign would have an estimated cost range 
of (a) between $540,000 and $1,080,000 for the general 
election, and (b) between $17,000 and $408,000 for run-off 
elections, for (c) a total cost range of between $557,000 
and $1,488,000 (see Attachment II, Table 5). The same 
assumptions used in Comments No. 5 and 7 apply. 

9. Under the proposed ordinance, the Ethics Commission 
would incur additional costs to administer the public 
financing program which would require it to perform a 
number of additional functions: 

• Adoption of regulations to implement the proposed 
ordinance and specification of all forms and 
statements required to be filed under the proposed 
ordinance; 

• Determination of the annual and supplemental 
appropriation needs of (a) the Election Campaign 
Fund, and (b) the Ethics Commission for 
administration of the public financing program: 

• Certification of candidates' eligibility to receive public 
funds and. in the case of non-certification, reviewing 
appeals; 

• Processing of reports filed by (a) candidates who do not 

ive public funds but who do receive or expend 
funds over a specified threshold, and (b) committees 
which make election ampaign contributions over 
specified threshol 

• Audits of all candidates who receive public funds 
under the proposed ordinance; 

• Investigation of alleged violations of the proposed 
ordinance; 



3 The reports required by the proposed ordinance are in addition to the campaign disclosure 
requirements imposed by the California Political Reform Act and the San Francisco Campaign 
Finance Reform Ordinance. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 5, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



• Imposition of administrative penalties for violators of 
the proposed ordinance; and 

• Reports to the Mayor and Board of Supervisors after 
each election on the public financing program. 

According to Ms. Starkman, the Ethics Commission would 
need to employ at least two additional full-time employees 
to implement and administer the above functions at a 
total estimated cost of $100,000 per year (inclusive of 
mandatory fringe benefits). The Ethics Commission 
states that it might also need to employ a clerical 
employee during the first six months of the program at a 
total estimated cost of $17,000. Annual non-salary 
operating costs are estimated to be an additional $20,000 
per year. The total estimated cost in the first year would 
therefore be approximately $137,000 (as shown in 
Attachment I, Table 2). 

10. According to Ms. Ginny Vida of the Ethics 
Commission, the Ethics Commission has not included in 
its FY 2000-2001 budget request any additional funding 
for the new Ethics Commission functions related to the 
proposed public financing program. Ms. Vida states that 
if the proposed public financing program is approved, 
then the Ethics Commission would request additional FY 
2000-2001 funding through a supplemental appropriation. 

11. Equipment purchased by candidates with public 
funds which is worth at least $100 and has continued 
useful life would become City property after the election. 
Candidates who receive public funds but who withdraw or 
fail to qualify for the ballot would be required to repay the 
full amount of public funds received. Candidates who 
have surplus public funds,, or who have received amounts 
in excess of their entitlement, would be required to return 
the unexpended or excess funds to the Election Campaign 
Fund. Under the proposed ordinance, candidates who 
were required to repay monies would not be required to 
pay interest on those repayments. 

12. Violators of the proposed ordinance could be subject 
to administrative, civil, and criminal penalties if they (a) 
willfully, knowingly, or negligently misuse public funds, 
or (b) provide false or misleading information to, or 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

2 5 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 5, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



conceal information from, the Ethics Commission in 
relation to the subject public financing program. 
Violators could be liable to pay a fine of up to $5,000 (or, 
in the case of (a), three times the amount improperly 
spent, whichever is greater), or could be imprisoned for up 
to six months, or both. 



Recommendation: 



Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for 
the Board of Supervisors. 



Supervisor Yee 
Supervisor Bierman 
President Ammiano 
Supervisor Becernl 
Supervisor Brown 
Supervisor Katz 
Supervisor Kaufman 
Supervisor Leno 
Supervisor Newsom 
Supervisor Teng 
Supervisor Yaki 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Legislative Analyst 
Erm McGrath 
Stephen Kawa 
Ted Lakey 




Harvey M. Rose 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



cou^ 




Ethics Commission 

City and County of San Francisco 



Attachment I 
Pase 1 of 5 



Isabella H. Grant 
Chairperson 

Henri E. Norris 
Vice-Chairperson 

Robert D. 
Dccxendorff 
Commissioner 

Carol M. Ktngsley 
Commissioner 

Paul H. Melbostad 
Commissioner 

Virginia E. Vida 
Executive Director 



Date: 
To: 

From: 

Re: 

I. 



March 7, 2000 

Alan Gibson 

Office of the Budget Analyst 

Naomi Starkman'-t_) 
Deputy Executive Director 

Projected Costs of the Ethics Commission's Proposal for Public Financing of 
Election Campaigns 



Introduction 



Your office has asked the Ethics Commission to determine the costs associated with the 
Commission's proposal for public financing of election campaigns. The purpose of this 
memorandum is to: 1) summarize the funding alternatives associated with the public financing 
program; 2) estimate the projected budget of the proposed Election Campaign Fund; and 
3) estimate the costs to the Ethics Commission associated with administration of the program. 



II. 



Funding Sources 



Although the Commission's proposal contemplates funding the public financing program through 
the City's General Fund, the Commission asked its staff to research funding alternatives for the 
program. The results of the staffs research are discussed in a February 16, 2000 memorandum 
to the Board of Supervisors entitled, "Report on Funding Alternatives to the General Fund for a 
Public Financing Program," and are summarized below. 

1 . Comparative Information of other Public Finance Programs 

Prior to making its recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, Commission staff studied four 
cities that have partial public financing of campaigns: Los Angeles, New York City, Long 
Beach and Tucson. In addition, the City of Oakland recently approved a public financing 
program. All five municipalities fund their public finance programs through their City's General 
Fund. Based on the successful experiences of these jurisdictions, the Commission proposes to 
fund San Francisco's public financing program through the City's General Fund. 

Staff also reviewed the laws of several states that have enacted (but have yet to implement) full 
public financing of campaigns: Arizona, Maine, Vermont and Massachusetts. The Commission 
did not discuss in detail any of the alternative funding options contemplated in these jurisdictions. 

Arizona funds its program through the following sources: 1) a SI 00 annual fee imposed on 
registered lobbyists representing for-profit interests; 2) an additional surcharge often percent 
imposed on all civil and criminal fines and penalties; 3) a five-dollar voluntary contribution 
check-off on tax return forms; and 4) voluntary donations and tax credits, not to exceed S500 or 
20 percent of a resident's annual state income tax liability, whichever is greater 



1390 Market Street. Suite 801 • San Francisco, CA 94102-5302 .Phone (41 5) 554-9510 • Fax (415) 554-8757 
E-Mail Address: cthicscommissioniSci.sf.ca.us Website http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/etti 



Attachment I 

., „- Pap.e 2 ot b 

Alan Gibson 

Office of the Budget Analyst 

March 7, 2000 

Page 2 

Maine has a special, dedicated, non-lapsing Fund and any interest generated by the Fund is credited to the 
Fund. The following sources of funding must be deposited in the Fund: 1) $2 million in revenues from 
sales and use taxes and income taxes and credited to the General Fund, 2) a tax check-off program 
allowing Maine residents to designate S3 be paid into the Fund, and 3) late filing penalties and penalties for 
violations of the Maine Clean Elections Act. The Massachusetts Clean Election Fund receives its funding 
from voluntary check-off on the state income tax forms and from appropriations by the state legislature 
Funds are capped at one tenth of one percent of the state budget. 

Vermont does not set aside an amount for its Campaign Finance Fund The Fund's revenue sources 
include: 1) grant funds unused by publicly funded candidates, 2) penalties and fines levied for violations of 
all sections of the campaign finance law; 3) 40 percent of the amounts paid as annual report fees by 
domestic corporations under Vermont law and 33 percent of the amounts paid as annual report fees by 
foreign corporations under Vermont law; 4) all amounts collected from the tax on lobbying expenditures 
imposed under Vermont law; 5) any gifts received by the fund, 6) any amounts appropriate to the Vermont 
campaign fund by act of the general assembly; and 7) all principal and interest of the Fund 

Staff also reviewed the federal public finance program. Eligible presidential candidates running in the 
primary election receive partial public financing and the candidates who are nominated for the general 
election receive a full grant of public funds Funding for the federal program comes from the S3 check-off 
that appears on federal income tax forms While disbursements from the fund arc indexed to inflation, the 
$3 tax check-off is not. 

2 Surcharges on Citv- Imposed Taxes 

.Although the Commission did not contemplate funding the program through a surcharge, the staff discussed 
this option with Chief Assistant Treasurer Jay Banfield and Controller Edward Harrington. According to 
Chief Assistant Treasurer Banfield. the City collects business taxes and property taxes. Business taxes 
include receipts and payroll taxes; hotel tax, parking tax, stadium operator tax, and a transient occupancv 
tax. Property taxes include secured tax; unsecured tax, supplemental property transfer tax. and a utilitv 
users tax. 

The City could consider the possibility of a surcharge on the following business fees/taxes business 
registration license fees (which produce S10 million/year), parking violation fines and parking taxes. The 
City could also consider setting aside a portion of the City's property tax (which produces S600 
million/year). According to Controller Harrington, the utility users tax, which is paid only bv commercial 
users, \ields about S60 million per year A two percent surcharge on the utility users tax would produce 
about $12 million per year. However, much of the revenue from. property taxes is alreadv committed to 
funding certain City programs. 

The California Constitution requires San Francisco voter approval for any tax increase to general taxes or 
special taxes. The City may not impose, extend, or increase any general tax unless the tax is submitted to 
the electorate and approved by a majority vote The City may not impose, extend, cr increase any special 
tax (for example, for a public financing program) unless the tax is submitted to the electorate and approved 
by a two-thirds vote. {See Cal. Constitution Article 13(C)(2).) According to Controller Harrington, 
because a fee is only allowed to recover the costs of providing a service, a surcharge on a fee would 
probably be considered a tax subject to voter approval 



Attachment I 

Alan Gibson Pa ^ e 3 ot b 

OfBce of the Budget Analyst 
March 7, 2000 
Page 3 

3. Voluntary Contributions 

As another alternative source of funding, the City could also solicit contributions from taxpayers for the 
public financing program. The City currently solicits contributions from taxpayers to fund youth and 
children services. (See S.F. Admin. Code Chapter 51 A.) 

The City could request voluntary contributions through voter registration cards, voter information 
pamphlets and other materials distributed by the Ethics Commission or the Department of Elections. The 
revenue from these contributions could be set aside in the Election Campaign Fund, which is specifically 
designed for disbursing public funds to eligible candidates. 

However, based on the data gathered by staff and conversations with representatives of jurisdictions that 
have voluntary contributions, such programs have proven unsuccessful. For example, public participation 
in the federal tax check-off has gradually decreased in recent years from a high of 28 percent in 1980 to 
less than 12 percent in 1997. 

III. Projected Election Campaign Fund Budget 

The projected budget for the proposed Election Campaign Fund depends on the number of vacant seats per 
district and the number of candidates that qualify for public financing and whether run-off elections are 
required. 

In the 2000 general election, all 1 1 seats for the Board of Supervisors will be vacant. After the 2000 
general election, the clerk of the Board of Supervisors will determine by lot whether the supervisors elected 
from the even or odd-numbered districts will have terms expiring m two or four years. (See Charter 
Section 13.1 10(f).) Accordingly, there will be either five or six vacant seats in 2002 and 2004. For 
purposes of this memorandum, it is assumed that there will be five vacant seats in the 2002 general election 
and six vacant seats in the 2004 general election. 

Because it is difficult to predict a minimum or maximum cost of the program, the Commission staff 
developed assumptions as to how many candidates will participate in the program in the next three general 
elections. (See Attachment 1: Cost Projections for Public Financing Proposal.) The attachment assumes 
that at least two candidates per district will receive public financing in the general election and at least one 
candidate per district will receive public financing in the run-off election. Based on these assumptions, the 
staff estimated a range of projected costs for all three elections, as described below in Table 1. 

Table 1 



Year 


Range of Costs 


2000 


$1,007,000-52,728.000 


2002 


$467,000-51.240,000 


2004 


5557,000-51.488.000 



IV. Projected Administrative Costs to the Ethics Commission 

The administrative costs associated with the program depend, in pan, on the number of candidates that 
apply for public financing. The number of candidates in a particular election will affect the amount of time 
staff will spend on the certification and appeals process and the total number of audits to be performed 
Most of the administrative costs are projected for personnel needs It is important to note that with a full- 
time staff of seven, the Ethics Commission is not able to fulfill all of its current Charter mandates. For this 



9Q 



Attachment I 
Alan Gibson Page 5 of 5 

Office of the Budget Analyst 
March 7, 2000 
Page 4 

reason, it is imperative that the Commission obtain additional staff to administer the public finance 
program. 

The Commission estimates that it will need at least two additional full-time professional employees to 
implement and administer the program. 1 However, the cost to the Ethics Commission might be greater at 
the outset of the program, considering the short timeframe contemplated for enactment of the proposal It 
may be necessary to hire three full-time employees (two professional employees and one clerical employee) 
for a period of six months in order to implement the proposal and thereafter reduce the total number of 
additional staff to two. In addition, the Commission estimates that there will be non-personnel costs 
associated with the program, such as resources for additional personnel and costs for materials and 
mailings. The estimated administrative costs are described below in Table 2. 

Table 2 



Item 


Amount 


Salaries of 2 FT professional employees* 


$100,000 


Salary of 1 FT clerical employee (a) 6 months 


$17,000 


Non-personnel costs 


$20,000 


Total 


$137,000 



If the proposal is implemented in this fiscal year, the Commission would be required to request a 
supplemental appropriation for its FY 2000-2001 budget. Some initial start-up costs, such as drafting 
regulations, manuals and forms, may be required to be absorbed by the Commission's current budget. 

The proposal has fiscal implications for other City departments, tncluding the offices of the Controller and 
the City Attorney. The proposal provides that the Commission may request the assistance of the Controller 
in the review process and requires the Controller to disburse payments to candidates from the Fund The 
proposal also provides that the Controller assist in conducting audits of all candidates who receive public 
financing. The City Attorney's Office, which is the legal advisor to the Ethics Commission, would assist 
the Commission staff in drafting implementing regulations. 

The staff gathered information about the administrative costs in jurisdictions that have partial public 
financing programs. It is important to note that most of the jurisdictions provide public financing to 
candidates running for several elected offices, such as the office of Mayor, City Attorney, District Attomev 
and/or Controller. The Ethics Commission proposes providing funding only to candidates for the Board of 
Supervisors. Also, please note that some of the cities that have public finance programs have agencies that 
only handle campaign finance issues, such as the New York City Campaign Finance Board. The San 
Francisco Ethics Commission handles a variety of issues, including, but not limited to, campaign finance 
laws 

The Los .Angeles City Ethics Commission, which like the San Francisco Ethics Commission administers a 
variety of programs, could not provide specific information regarding overall administrative costs of its 
public finance program. In addition to the several auditors who audit publicly financed candidates, Los 
.Angeles employed roughly 1 ' : .Analysts in the most recent election to administer the program for four 



One employee would administer the program, including creating all necessary forms, manuals and training 
materials, giving advice and reviewing all submitted documentation. The other employee would work with the 
Controller's office to conduct audits of all participating candidates. 
* This amount includes mandatory fringe benefits. 



Attachment I 
Alan Gibson Fape b of 5 

Office of the Budget Analyst 
March 7, 2000 
Page 5 

months at a cost of SI 8,000. 3 The New York City Campaign Finance Board was not able to provide 
specific information regarding the administrative costs of its public financing program. The Board's total 
budget is estimated at S3 million, including S2 million in personnel costs for its 47 staff members. The 
City of Long Beach could not provide an estimate regarding the cost of administration of its program. The 
City of Tucson provided staff with some information regarding the cost of auditing participating 
candidates, which it estimated were $14,725 in 1997, but it did not have specific information about overall 
administrative costs. The City of Oakland recently passed a public financing proposal which sets aside 7.5 
percent of that city's Election Campaign Fund of 5230,000 for the cost of administration to the Oakland 
City Ethics Commission and the City Auditor, or 517,250. 

I hope you find this memo responsive to your inquiries. If you have questions, or need additional 
information, please contact me at (415) 554-95 10. 



\ETHICS-01SVR\DATA\SHARED\Public FinanceVBudget Analyst\BudgetAnalyst2.doc 



This amount docs not include auditing costs or costs associated with training, the issuance of advice, or materials 
More importantly, these figures change on an annual basis, depending on the number of candidates running for 
office and the number of participants in the public financing program. The Los Angeles Ethics Commission could 
not estimate the costs incurred by the Controller with respect to releasing public funds to candidates 



Attachment II 





Cost Projections for Public Financing Proposal 
of San Francisco Ethics Commission 


Pape 


L of 9 




Table No. 


1: General Election Costs 








Scenario 


No. of Vacant 
Seats 


Average No. 
of 

Participating 
Candidates 
per District 


Projected Cost to 
City per 
Candidate 


Projected 
Cost to City 
per Election 




G-l (2000) 




11 


2 545,000 


S990,000 




G-2 (2000) 




11 


3 545,000 


SI, 485,000 




G-3 (2000) 
G-4 (2002) 




11 

5 


4 S45,000 
2 ~"s45Tb66 


SI, 980,000 
S450,000 




G-5 (2002) 




5 


3 545,000 


S675,000 




G-6J2002) 
6-7(2004)" 


-"• ■:- —71- 


5 
~6 


4 545,000 
2| 545,000 


5900,000 
5540,000 




G-8 (2004) 




6 


3 545,000 


5810,000 




G-9 (2004) 




6 


4 545,000 


51,080,000 








Table No. 2: Runoff Election Costs 






No. of Districts 
with Runoff 
Elections 


No. of 

Participating 

Candidates 


Projected Cost to 
City per 
Candidate 


Projected 
Cost to City 
per Election 




R-l 




11 


2; 534,000 


S748.000 




R-2 




11 


1 517,000 


5187,000 




R-3 




10 


2 534,000 


S680,000 




R-4 




10 


1 517,000 


SI 70,000 




R-5 




9 


2 S34,000 


S6 12,000 




R-6 




9 


1 SI 7,000 


SI 53,000 




R-7 




8 


2 S34.000 


S544.000 




R-8 




8 


1 SI 7,000 


SI 36,000 




R-9 




7 


2 534,000 


S476.000 




R-10 




7 


1 517,000 


SI 19.000 




R-ll 




6 


2 534,000 


S408.000 




R-12 




6 


1 517,000 


SI 02.000 




R-13 




5 


2 534,000 


S340,000 




R-14 




5 


1 517,000 


S85,000 




R-15 




4 


2 S34,000 


S272.000 




R-16 




4 


1 SI 7,000 


S68.000 




R-17 




3 


2 S34.000 


S204.000 




R-18 




] 


1 SI 7,000 


S5 1,000 




R-19 




2 


2 S34,000 


SI 36,000 




R-20 




j 


1 SI 7,000 


S34.000 




R-21 




1 


2 534,000 


S68.000 




R-22 




1 


1 SI 7,000 


SI ".000 





Key: G = General Election 
R = Runoff Election 



p. 1 of 1 



Attachment II 
Paee 2 of 9 



p. 1 of 3 





Table 2 


: Range of Costs for 2000 Election* 




Scenario 


General Election 
4 Scenario 


Runoff Election 
Scenario 


Projected Cost of 

Year 2000 
General Election 


Projected Cost of 

Year 2000 
Runoff Elections: 


Projected Costs of 

General and 

Runoff, Year 2000 

Election 




G- 1 (2 candidates/ 1 1 
1 offices) 


R- 1 (11 runoffs/2 
candidates) 


3990,000 


5748,000 


Sl,738,000 




G- 1 (2 candidates/ 1 1 
2 offices) 


R-2 (11 runoffs/ 1 
candidate) 


5990,000 


1 
5187,000: 


51,177,000 




G- 1 (2 candidates/ 1 1 
3 offices) 


R-3( 10 runoffs/2 
candidates) 


5990,000 


5680,000 


51,670,000 




G- 1 (2 candidates/ 1 1 
4 offices) 


R-4( 10 runoffs/ 1 
candidate) 


S990,000 


5170,000; 


51,160,000 




G-l (2 candidates/ 1 1 
5 offices) 


R-5 (9 runoffs/2 
candidates) 


S990,000 


5612,000 


51,602,000 




G-l (2 candidates/ 1 1 
6 offices) 


R-6 (9 runoffs/ 1 
candidate) 


5990,000 


5153,000 


51,143,000 




G-l (2 candidates/ 1 1 
7 offices) 


R-7 (8 runoffs/2 
candidates) 


5990,000 


5544,000 ! 


51,534,000 


G- 1 (2 candidates/ 1 1 
8 offices) 


R-8 (8 runoffs/ 1 
candidate) 


5990,000 


5136,000; 


SI, 126,000 


G-l (2 candidates/ 1 1 
9 offices) 


R-9 (7 runoffs/2 
candidates) 


S990,000 


5476,000 


SI, 466,000 




; G-1 (2 candidates/11 
10 offices) 


R-10 (7 runoffs/ 1 
candidate) 


5990,000 


5119,000 


51,109,000 




G-l (2 candidates/ 1 1 
1 1 offices) 


R-ll (6 runoffs/2 
candidates) 


5990,000 


5408,000 


51,398,000 




G- 1 (2 candidates/ 1 1 
12 offices) 


R-12 (6 runoffs/ 1 
candidate) 


S990,000 


5102,000 


51,092,000 




G-l (2 candidates/ 11 
13 offices) 


R-13 (5 runoffs/2 
candidates) 


5990,000 


5340,000 


51,330,000 




G-l (2 candidates/ 1 1 
14 offices) 


R-14 (5 runoffs/ 1 
candidate) 


5990,000 


S85,00O 


Sl,075,000 




G- 1 (2 candidates/ 1 1 
15 offices) 


R-15 (4 runoffs- 2 
candidates) 


5990,000 


5272,000 


SI, 262,000 




G-l (2 candidates/ 1 1 
16 offices) 


R- 1 6 (4 runoffs/ 1 
candidate) 


5990,000 


568,000 


SI, 058,000 




G-l (2 candidates/ 1 1 
17 offices) 


R-17 (3 runoffs/2 
candidates) 


5990,000 


S204.000 


SI, 194,000 




G-l (2 candidates/ 1 1 
IS offices) 


R-18 (3 runoffs/ 1 
candidate) 


5990.000 


S5 1,000 


SI, 04 1, 000 




G-l (2 candidates/ 1 1 
19 offices) 


R-19(2runoffs-2 
candidates) 


5990,000 


5136,000 


SI, 126,000 




G-l (2 candidates/ 1 1 1 
20 offices) 


R-20 (2 runoffs/ 1 
candidate) 


5990,000 


534,000 


S 1,024,000 




G-l (2 candidates/ 1 1 
21 offices) 


R-21 (1 runoff/2 
candidates) 


5990,000 


568,000 


S 1,058.000 




G-l (2 candidates/ 1 1 
22 offices) 


R-22 (1 runoff 1 
candidate) 


S990.000 


SI 7,000 


5 1.007,000 



All 1 1 seats are vacant. 



Attachment II 
Page 3 of 9 



p. 2 of 3 



Table V. Range of Costs for 2000 Election* 


Scenario # 


, Projected Costs of 
Projected Cost of Projected Cost of General and 
General Election Runoff Election Year 2000 Year 2000 Runoff, Year 2000 
Scenario Scenario General Election Runoff Elections Election 


G-2 (3 candidates/ 11 jR-1 (1 1 nmofTs/2 
23 i offices) 'candidates) SI, 485,000 5748,000 | S2.233.000 


G-2 (3 candidates/ 1 1 R-2 ( 1 1 runoffs/ 1 
24, offices) 1 candidate) SI, 485,000 5187,000' SI, 672,000 


G-2 (3 candidates/ 11 :R-3 (10 runoffs/ 2 
25 offices) candidates) Sl.485.000i S680,000< S2.165.000 


|G-2 (3 candidates/ 11 R-J (10 runoffs/ 1 
26 offices) (candidate) 51.485.000 5170,000 51,655,000 


27 


G-2 (3 candidates/ 11 
offices) 


R-5 (9 runoffs/2 

candidates) 51, 485,000 1 5612,000 52,097,000 


G-2 (3 candidates/ 11 
28 'offices) 


R-6 (9 runoffs/ 1 

candidate) 51,485,000 5153,000 51,638,000 


G-2 (3 candidates/ 11 R-7 (8 runoffs/2 
29 offices) (candidates) 51,485,000 5544,000 52,029,000 


IG-2 (3 candidates/ 11 R-8 (8 runoffs/ 1 
30ioffices) candidate) 51,485,000 5136,000 51,621,000 


31 


G-2 (3 candidates/ 11 
offices) 


R-9 (7 runoffs/2 

candidates) Sl,485,0O0l 5476,0001 51,961,000 


G-2 (3 candidates/ 1 1 
32 offices) 


R-10 (7 runoffs/ 1 

candidate) Sl.485,000 5119,000 Sl.604,000 


G-2 (3 candidates/ 1 1 R-l 1 (6 runoffs/2 
33 offices) candidates) SI. 485,000 5408.000 SI, 893,000 


G-2 (3 candidates/ 11 R- 1 2 (6 runoffs/ 1 
34 offices) candidate) 51,485,000 5102,000 51,587,000 


IG-2 (3 candidates/ 11 R- 13 (5 runoffs/2 
35 offices) candidates) 51,485,000 5340,000 51,825,000 


G-2 (3 candidates/ 1 1 R-14 (5 runoffs/ 1 
36 offices) candidate) 51, 485.000 585.000 51,570,000 


G-2 (3 candidates'! 1 R-15 (4 runoffv2 
37 offices) candidates) SI. 485,000 5272,000! 51,757,000 


G-2 (3 candidates/ 11 R- 1 6 (4 runoffs/ 1 
38 offices) candidate) 51,485,000 S68.000 Sl.553,000 


G-2 (3 candidates/ 1 1 R-l 7 (3 runoffs/2 
39 offices) candidates) S1.4S5.000 S204.000 51,689,000 


G-2 (3 candidates/ 11 R- 1 8 (3 runoffs/ 1 
40 offices) candidate) 51,485,000 551,000 51,536.000 


G-2 (3 candidates/ 11 R- 1 9 (2 runoffs/2 
41 offices) candidates) SI. 485,000 SI 36.000 51,621.000 


G-2 (3 candidates/ 1 1 R-20 (2 runoffs; 1 
42 offices) candidate) 51,485,000 534,000 51,519,000 


G-2 (3 candidates/ 11 R-2 1 ( 1 runoff 2 
43 offices) candidates) Sl.485.000 S68.000 Sl.553,000 


G-2 (3 candidates/ 1 1 R-22 (1 runoff/ 1 
44 offices) candidate) Sl.485.000 Si 7.000 S 1.502.000 



* All 11 seats are vacant. 



p. 3 of 3 



Attachment II 
Page 4 of 9 



Table 2 


: Range of Costs for 2000 Election* 




Scenario # 


General Election 
Scenario 


Runoff Election 
Scenario 


Projected Cost of j Projected Cost of 

Year 2000 Year 2000 
General Election Runoff Elections 


Projected Costs of 

General and 

Runoff, Year 2000 

Election 


jG-3 (4 candidates/ 11 
45 (offices) 


R-l (11 runoffs/2 
candidates) 


51,980,000 


5748,000 


52,728,000 


G-3 (4 candidates/ 1 1 
46 (offices) 


R-2(ll runoffs/ 1 
candidate) 


51,980,000 


5187,000 


52,167,000 


G-3 (4 candidates/ 11 
47 offices) 


R-3 (10 runoffs/2 
candidates) 


51,980,000 


5680,000 


52,660,000 


48 


G-3 (4 candidates/ 1 1 
offices) 


R-4 (10 runoffs/ 1 
candidate) 


51,980,000 


5170,000 


52,150,000 


G-3 (4 candidates/1 1 
49 i offices) 


R-5 (9 runoffs/2 
candidates) 


51,980,000 


5612,000 


52,592,000 


50 


G-3 (4 candidates/ 1 1 
offices) 


R-6 (9 runoffs/1 
candidate) 


51,980,000 


5153,000 


52,133,000 


G-3 (4 candidates/ 1 1 
5 1 offices) 


R-7 (8 runoffs/2 
candidates) 


51,980,000 


5544,000 


52,524,000 


52 


G-3 (4 candidates/ 1 1 
offices) 


R-8 (8 runoffs/1 
candidate) 


51,980,000 


5136,000 


52,116,000 


|G-3 (4 candidates/ 1 1 
53l offices) 


R-9 (7 runoffs/2 
candidates) 


51,980,000 


5476,000 


52,456,000 


G-3 (4 candidates/ 1 1 
54 j offices) 


R-10 (7 runoffs/1 
candidate) 


51,980,000 


5119,000 


52,099,000 


G-3 (4 candidates/ 1 1 
55 1 offices) 


R-ll (6 runoffs/2 
candidates) 


51,980,000 


5408,000 


52,388,000 


G-3 (4 candidates/ 11 
56 offices) 


R-l 2 (6 runoffs/ 1 
candidate) 


51,980,000 


5102,000 


52,082,000 


G-3 (4 candidates/ 11 
57 i offices) 


R-l 3 (5 runoffs/2 
candidates) 


51,980,000 


5340,000 


52,320,000 


G-3 (4 candidates/ 1 1 
58 i offices) 


R-l 4 (5 runoffs/ 1 
candidate) 


51,980,000 


585,000 


52,065,000 


'G-3 (4 candidates/ 1 1 
59 : offices) 


|R-15 (4 runoffs/2 

i candidates) 


51,980,000 


5272,000 


52,252,000 


G-3 (4 candidates/ 11 
60; offices) 


R-l 6 (4 runoffs/1 
candidate) 


51,980,000 


568,000 


52,048,000 


iG-3 (4 candidates/ 1 1 
61 ! offices) 


jR-17 (3 runoffs/2 
candidates) 


si^so.ooo 


5204,000 


52,184,000 


G-3 (4 candidates/ 1 1 
62! offices) 


R-l 8 (3 runoffs/ 1 
candidate) 


51,980,000 


551,000 


52,031,000 


G-3 (4 candidates/ 1 1 
63 offices) 


|R-19 (2 runoffs/2 
candidates) 


51,980,000 


5136,000 


i 

52,116,000 


G-3 (4 candidates/ 1 1 
64 offices) 


;R-20 (2 runoffs/ 1 
candidate) 


1 

51,980,000 


534,000 


52,014,000 


G-3 (4 candidates/ 1 1 
65 offices) 


R-21 (1 runoff/2 
| candidates) 


S1,9S0,000 


568,000 


1 

52,048,000 


G-3 (4 candidates/ 1 1 
66 offices) 


; R-22(1 runoff/ 1 
candidate) 


51,980.000 


517,000 


51,997.000 



All 11 seats are vacant. 



1 of 2 



Attachment II 
Page 5 of 9 



Table 4: Range 


nf Costs for 2002 Flection 


t 


i General 

Election 

Scenario tt Scenario 


Runoff 
Election 
Scenario •• 


Projected Cost of 

Year 2002 
General Election 


Projected Cost of 

Year 2002 
Runoff Elections 


Combined 

Projected Costs 

of General and 

Runoff, Year 

2002 Election 


G-4(2 R-13 (5 
candidates/5 1 runoffs/2 
1 offices) candidates) 


S450.000 


5340.000 


5790,000 


G-4(2 R-14(5 

candidates/ 5 runoffs/ 1 

2offices) candidate) 


S450.000 


585,000 


5535,000 


,G-*(2 R-15(4 
candidates/5 runoffs/2 
3loffices) candidates) 


5450,000 


5272,000 


5722.000 


|G-4(2 R-16(4 

candidates/5 i runoffs/ 1 

4 offices) candidate) 


5450,000 


568.000 


5518,000 


,G-4(2 | R- 1 7 (3 
candidates/5 runoffs/2 
5 offices) i candidates) 


5450,000 


5204,000 


5654,000 


iG-4(2 R-18(3 

candidates/5 runoffs/ 1 

6 (offices) candidate) 


5450.000 


551.000 


5501.000 


G-4(2 R-19(2 

candidates/5 runoffs/2 

7 offices) candidates) 


5450.000 


5136.000 


5586.000 


G-4(2 R-20(2 

candidates/5 runoffs- 1 

8 offices) candidate) 


S450.000 


534.000 


5484.000 


G-4(2 R-21 
candidates/5 (1 runoff/2 
9 offices) candidates) 


S4 50.000 


568.000 


5518.000 


G-4(2 R-22(l 

candidates/ 5 runoff/' 1 

10 offices) candidate) 

G-"5(T "|R43 
candidates/5 runoffs 2 
12 offices) candidates) 


S450.000 


SI 7,000 


S467.000 
51.015.000 


S675.000 


S340.000 


G-5(3 R-14(5 

candidates/5 runoffs 1 

13 offices) candidate) 


5675,000 


585.000 


5760.000 


G-5(3 R-15(4 

candidates 5 runoffs 2 

14 offices) candidates) 


S675.000 


5272.000 


S947.000 


G-5(3 R-16(4 

candidates' 5 runoffsi 

15 offices) candidate) 


S675.000 


S68.000 


5743,000 


G-5(3 R-17(3 

candidates? runoffs 2 

16 offices) candidates) 


S 6" 5. 000 


S204.000 


S8-9.000 



* Assumes 5 vacant seats. 

** Scenarios R-l to R-12 do not apply because they represent runoffs for more than five districts. 



p. 2 of 2 



Attachment II 
Page 6 of 9 



Table 4: Range of Costs for 2002 Flection* 


Scenario # 


General 
Ek :non 
Scenario 


Runoff 
Election 
Scenario ** 


Combined 

Projected Costs 

Projected Cost of j Projected Cost of! of General and 

Year 2002 Year 2002 Runoff, Year 

General Election i Runoff Elections i 2002 Election 


17 


G-5 (3 IR-18 (3 

candidates/5 1 runoffs/ 1 

offices) Icandidate) ! 5675,0001 551,000 


5726,000 


G-5 (3 IR-19 (2 
candidates/5 1 runoffs/2 
18loffices) candidates) 1 5675,0001 5136,0001 5811,000 


G-5 (3 
candidates/5 
19' offices) 


R-20 (2 

runoffs/1 

candidate) 


5675,000 


534,000 


5709,000 


20 


G-5 (3 

candidates/5 

offices) 


R-21 

(1 runoff/2 

candidates) 


5675,0001 568,000 5743,000 


21 

,'-^'.'-.'.:.J_.:^:iili 

23 


G-5 (3 IR-22 (1 
candidates/5 i runoff/1 
offices) 1 candidate) 

G^6(4 tJB "lR^3(5 
candidates/5 runoffs/2 
offices) candidates) 


S675,000| 517,000 
5900,000 5340,000 


5692,000 
51,240,000 


G-6(4 IR-14 (5 
candidates/5 runoffs/1 
24 offices) candidate) ! 5900,0001 585,000' 5985,000 


G-6(4 |R-15(4 
i candidates/5 runoffs/2 
25 1 offices) 1 candidates) 1 5900,000' 5272,000; 51,172.000 


jG-6(4 ; R-16(4 

j candidates/5 ■ runoffs/ 1 
26 offices) candidate) ''' 5900,000 


568,000 5968,000 


jG-6 (4 jR-17 (3 
candidates/5 runoffs/2 
27! offices) 'candidates) i 5900,000 


1 
5204,000 51,104.000 


|G-6(4 !R-18(3 

candidates/5, runoffs/1 i , 
28 i offices) 'candidate) 5900,000; 551,000 5951.000 


|G-6(4 :R-19(2 
candidates/5 runoffs/2 
29 offices) Candidates) 5900,000 5136,000 51.036,000 


,G-6(4 R-20 (2 
candidates/5 runoffs/1 
30 'offices) candidate) 5900.000 534,000 5934,000 


G-6(4 R-21 
candidates/5 (1 runoff/2 
31 'offices) Candidates) $900,000 568,000 5968.000 


|G-6(4 ;R-22(1 
candidates/5 runoff/1 
32 'offices) candidate) S900.000 517,000 S9 17.000 



* Assumes 5 vacant seats. 

** Scenarios R-l to R-12 do not apply because they represent runoffs for more than five districts. 



p. 1 of 3 



Attachment II 
Page 7 of 9 



Table 5: Range 


of Costs for 2004 Flection 


\1 


General 

Election 

Scenario # Scenario 


Runoff 

Elecnon 

Scenarios" 


Projected Cost of Projected Cost of 

Year 2004 Year 2004 
General Election Runoff Elections 


Combined 

Projected Costs 

of General and 

Runoff, Year 

2004 Election 


G-7(2 R-ll (6 

candidates/6 runoffs/ 2 

1 offices) candidates) 


5540,000 


S408.000 


5948,000 


G-7(2 R-12(6 

candidates/6 runoffs/ 1 

2 offices) candidate) 


S540.000 


5102,000 


5642,000 


G-7(2 R-13 (5 

candidates/6 runoffs 2 

3 'offices) candidates) 


5540,000 


5340,000 


5880,000 


!G-7(2 ;R-14(5 

candidates' 6 runoffs/ 1 

4 offices) candidate) 


S540.000 


S85.000 


5625,000 


5 


G-7(2 R-I5(4 
candidates6 runoffs/2 
offices) candidates) 


5540,000 


S272.000 


5812,000 


!G-7(2 R-16(4 

candidates/6 runoffs/ 1 

6 offices) candidate) 


5540,000 


S68.000 


5608.000 


;G-7(2 R-17(3 
candidates/6 runoffs 2 
7 offices) candidates) 


S540.000 


5204,000 


5744,000 


G-7(2 R-18(3 

candidates/6 runoffs/1 

8 offices) candidate) 


5540,000 


551,000 


5591,000 


G-7(2 R-19(2 

candidates/6 runoffs 2 

9 offices) candidates) 


5540.000 


5136.000 


S676.000 


G-7(2 R-20(2 

candidates 6 runoffs 1 

10 offices) candidate) 


S540.000 


S34.000 


5574,000 


G-7(2 R-21 
candidates 6 (1 runoff/2 
11 offices) candidates) 


S540.000 


S6S.000 


5608.000 


G-7(2 R-22(l 

candidates'6 runoff' 1 

12 offices) candidate) 

~G-S(3 R-Yi ,V (6 

candidates/6 runoffs 2 

14 offices) candidates) 


S540.000 
5S 10.000 


SI 7,000 
S408.000 


S557.000 
S 1,2 18,000 


G-8(3 R-12(6 

candidates6 runoffs 1 

15 offices) candidate) 


SS 10.000 


S 102.000 


S9 12,000 


G-8(3 R-13 (5 

candidates 6 runoffs 2 

16 offices) candidates) 


SSI 0.000 


s:-4o.ooo 


SI. 150.000 



* Assumes 6 vacant seats. 

** Scenarios R-l to R-10 do not apply because they represent runoffs for more than six districts. 



p. 2 of 3 



Attachment II 
Page 8 of 9 



Scenario # 


General 
Election 
Scenario 


Runoff 
Election 
Scenarios** 


Projected Cost of 

Year 2004 
General E' action 


Projected Cost of 

Year 2004 
Runoff Elections 


Combined 

Projected Costs 

of General and 

Runoff, Year 

2004 Election 


G-8 (3 |R-14(5 

candidates/6 ! runo ffs/ 1 
17|offices) Candidate) 


5810,000 


585,000 


5895,000 


G-8 (3 |R-15(4 

candidates/6 • runoffs/2 

18 offices) candidates) 


$810,000 


5272,000 


51,082,000 


19 


G-8 (3 |R-16(4 
candidates/6 runoffs/1 
offices) candidate) 


5810,000 


568,000 


5878,000 


20 


G-8 (3 

candidates/6 

offices) 


R-17(3 

runoffs/2 

candidates) 


5810,000 


5204,000 


51,014,000 


21 


G-8 (3 

candidates/6 

offices) 


R-18(3 
runo ffs/ 1 
candidate) 


5810,000 


551,000 


5861,000 


22 


G-8 (3 R-19 (2 
candidates/6 runoffs/2 
offices) 'candidates) 


5810,000 


5136,000 


5946,000 


G-8 (3 |R-20(2 

candidates/6 runoffs/ 1 

23 i offices) (candidate) 


5810,000 


534,000 


5844,000 


|G-8 (3 IR-21 
candidates/6 ; ( 1 runoff/2 
241 offices) candidates) 


5810,000 


568,000 


5878,000 


IG-8 (3 iR-22 (1 

1 ! 
candidates/6 runoff/1 

25 1 offices) 1 candidate) 

G-9(/f " " [R-ll** (6 "' 
candidates/6 runoffs/ 2 
27 ! offices) .candidates) 


5810,000 
51,080,000 


517,000 
5408,000 


5827,000 
51,488,000 


jG-9(4 jR-12 (6 

candidates/6 ' runoffs/ 1 

28 offices) candidate) 


51,080,000 


5102,000 


51,182,000 


|G-9(4 ,R-13(5 
candidates/6 runoffs/2 
29 offices) candidates) 


S 1,080,000 


5340,000 


51,420,000 


;G-9(4 R-14(5 

candidates/6 runoffs/1 
30 'Offices) candidate) 


51,080,000 


S85.000 


51,165.000 


G-9(4 R-15(4 

candidates/6 runoffsV2 
31 offices) candidates) 


51,080,000 


5272,000 


SI, 352.000 


,G-9 (4 R-16(4 

candidates/6 runoffs/ 1 

32 offices'! candidate) 


51.080.000 


S68.000 


51.148.000 



* Assumes 6 vacant seats. 

** Scenarios R-l to R-10 do not apply because they represent runoffs for more than six districts. 

7Cl 



p. 3 of 3 



Attachment II 
Pape 9 of 9 



Scenario # 


General 
Election 
Scenario 


Runoff 
Election 
Scenarios" 


Combined 
Projected Costs 
Projected Cost of Projected Cost of of General and 
Year 2004 Year 2004 Runoff, Year 
General Election Runoff Elections 2004 Election 


G-9(4 R-17(3 
candidates/6 runoffs/2 
33 offices) candidates) Sl.080,000 $204,000 51284,000 


|G-9(4 R-18(3 
candidates/6 . runoffs/ 1 
34! offices) candidate) Sl.080,000 S5 1,000 


51,131.000 


G-9(4 lR-19 (2 
candidates/6 1 runoffs/2 
35ioffices) candidates) Sl.080.000l 5136.000 51.216,000 


G-9(4 ,R-20(2 
candidates/6 runoffs/ 1 
36loffices) icandidate) Sl.080,000 


534.000 


Sl.114,000 


G-9(4 :R-21 
candidates/6 (1 runoff/2 
37offices) Candidates) 51,080,000 S68.000 51,148,000 


G-9(4 R-22 (1 
candidates/'6irunoff71 
38 offices) Candidate) 51.080.000 


517.000 51.097.000 



* Assumes 6 vacant seats. 

** Scenarios R-l to R-10 do not apply because they represent runoffs for more than six districts. 




City and County of §an Francisco 

Meeting JMinutes 
^Finance and Labor Committee 

Members: Supervisors Leland Yee, Sue Merman, Tom Ammiano 
Clerk: Man Red 



City Hall 

1 Dr. Carlton B. 

Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, CA 

94102^*689 



Wednesday, April 12, 2000 



10:00 AM 
Regular Meeting 



City Hall, Room 263 



Members Present: Leland Y. Yee, Sue Bierman, Tom Ammiano. 



Meeting Convened 



000328 



The meeting convened at 10.08 a.m. 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

APR t 8 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



|Public Financing and Disclosure for Campaigns! 
Supervisor Ammiano 

Ordinance amending Administrative Code by adding Sections 16.549-1 through 16.549.18 to provide for 
public financing of election campaigns and to add Sections 16.550.1 through 16.550-10 to provide for 
increased disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures. 

(Fiscal impact: Adds Sections 16.549-1 through 16.549.18;and Sections 16.550-1 through 16.550.10.) 
2/18/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

4/5/00, AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW TITLE. Heard in Committee Supervisor Ammiano; 
Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Supervisor Yee; Ginny Vida, Executive Director, Ethics Commission; Naomi Starkman, Ethics 
Commission; Claire Sylvia, Deputy City Attorney; Paul Melbostad. Ethics Commission. In Support: Jim Knox. California Common 
Cause (CCC); Rebecca Silverberg. Coalition lor S. F. Neighborhoods (CSFN); Steven Currier; Mane Hamson; Bud Wilson. Greater West 
Portal; Joan Girardot, President, CSFN; Bill Rangfeld, CCC; Joan Kingery, CCC. Amendment of the Whole continued to April 12, 2000. 
4/5/00, CONTINUED AS AMENDED. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers. Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst: Supervisor Ammiano; Ginny Vida, Executive 
Director, Ethics Commission: Supenisor Bierman. Continued to April 19. 2000. See Files 999685 and 
000687 prepared in committee as ordinances. 
CONTINUED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



000685 [Public Financing of Election Campaigns! 
Supervisor Ammiano 

Ordinance amending the San Francisco Administrative Code to add Sections 16.549-1 through 16.549-18 to 
provide for public financing of election campaigns. 

(Fiscal Impact; Adds Section 16.549-1 through 16.549-18) 

I /card in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst. Supenisor Ammiano; Ginny Vida, Executive 

Director. Ethics Commission; Supervisor Bierman See File 000328 

PREPARED IN COMMITTEE AS AN ORDIN \\< E b) the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 

Continued lo April 19, 2000 
CONTINUED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at I0 : ;S IW on 4 1 4 III! 



Finance and Labor Committee Meeting Minutes tprtt 12. 2000 



000687 [Public Matching Funds ami Disclosure ol Campaigns] 
Supervisor Ammiano 

Ordinance amending the San Franc isco Administrative (ode to add Sections l<> 549-1 through 16.549-18 to 
provide foi public matching funds to candidates foi local office who aie targeted by large independent 

expenditure campaigns and to add Sections 16.550 1 through 16.550-10 to provide foi increased disclosure of 
campaign contributions and expenditures 

(Fiscal Impact. Adds Section 16 549-1 through 16.549-18 and adds Section 16.550.1 through 16.550-10) 
Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst, Supervisor Ammiano, Ginny Vida, Executive 
Director, Ethics Commission. Supervisor Bierman See File 0003 
I'KKPARKl) I.N (OMMIIIH \s \\<>KI>I\\\< I l>> the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 

Continued to April 19, 2000 
CONTINU1 I) in the following rate: 

Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



t **>23 1 7 [Establishing < 'ourthouse ( 'hildren'i \n aiting Rooms Kund| 

Supen isors Kat/. I 'eng 

Ordinance amending Administrative (ode by adding Section 1<» I 17-125 to impose a surcharge of five dollars 
for the filing in Superior Court of specified initial pleadings and to appropriate the surcharge to pay costs, 
excluding capital outlay, related to the maintenance of children's waiting rooms at the Hall of Justice and Civic 

Center Courthouse 

(Adds Section 10.117-125.) 

12 20/99, ASSIGNED 1 NDER 30 DAY RULE to I inanceand I iboi Committee, expire* c 
Heard in Committee Speakers Hane\ Rose. Budget Analyst, Alan Carlson. ChieJ I 
Superior Court; Janet Michaelson, Ante to Supervisor Kat:. Geraldine Rosen Park. Women's Lav. 
Alliance, Shirley Melnicor, Northern California Service League, Ed Harrington, Controller Amended to 
reduce surcharge from five dollars to tour dollars, and change the word "fund" to "account" throughout the 
ordinance where the specific Fund is mentioned new title 
AMENDED. 

Ordinance amending Administrative Code by adding Section 10.1 17-125 to impose a surcharge of four dollars 
for the filing in Superior Court of specified initial pleadings and to appropriate the surcharge to pay costs. 
excluding capital outlay, related to the maintenance of children's waiting rooms at the Hall of Justice and Ci\ ic 
Center Courthouse 

(Adds Section 10.117-125 i 

RECOMMENDED tS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



City- and County- of San Francisco 2 Printed at 10:28 tM on 4 14 N 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



April 12, 2000 



000483 [Lease - Windsor Hotel] 
Supervisor Newsom 

Resolution authorizing and approving the lease by and between the City and County of San Francisco, for the 
Department of Public Health, as tenant, and 238 Windsor Associates, as landlord, for the ground floor and 
portions of the basement and mezzanine of the "Windsor Hotel" located at 238 Eddy Street. 
3/20/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Monique Zmuda, Department of Public 
Health; Supervisor Yee. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



000486 [Grant - Emergency Shelter Grant Program| 
Mayor 

Resolution approving the 2000 Emergency Shelter Grants Program and Expenditure Schedule and authorizing 
the Mayor on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco to apply for, accept, and expend a $890,000 
entitlement under the Emergency Shelter Grants Program from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development. 

3/20/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst; Pam David, Director, Mayor's Office of 
Community Development; Daiyl Higashi, Deputy Director, Mayor's Office of Housing; Super\>isor Yee; 
Supervisor Ammiano; David Pearson, Head Start; Dr. Norma Tecson, Filipino American Council; Janelle 
Pierce, Rosa Park Senior Center; Helen Davenport; Father Louis Vitale, St. Boniface Neighborhood Center; 
Janet Gomes, S. F. Conser\'ation Corp.; Donna Bennett, Milestone; Miguel Wooding, Eviction Collaborative, 
Devra Edelman, Haight Ashbury Food Program; Maurice, Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center; LaDawn 
Law, SFUSD, Child Development Program. Tami Rice-Mitchell, Charles Drew Center; Aurora Mahmack; 
Betty H.; Lisa Gray, Young Community Developers; Clarence Shaw, Housing Conservation and Development 
Corp.; Barbara Brown; Homer Marshall; Carlos Romero, Mission Housing; Grant Din, Asian Neighborhood 
Design; Teresa Verge I; Dominado Purugganan, World War 11 Veteran; Colleen Cassity, Juma Ventures; 
Gary K.; Gay Kaplan; Marian Doub. Women for Self Employment; Donna F.; EJmond Tong, Asian, Inc.; Mr. 
Young; Claudia Viek, Renaissance Entrepreneur Center Continued to April 19, 2000. 
CONTINUED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 



I'rimcdat 10:28 (M on 4 14 Oil 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



April 12. 2(1011 



000487 [Grant - BOME Program] 
Mayor 

Resolution authorizing the Mayor of the ( ity jiui ( ount> of Sao Francisco to apply i<>r. accept and administer 
a grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and I Than Development lor a total amount not to exceed 
$7,1 15,000 tor the HOME Program authorized under Title II of the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990, 
Public Law Number 101-625, and approving the HOME program description as described in the 2000 action 
plan for San I rancisco's consolidated plan. Indirect costs associated w uh the acceptance of these grant funds 
will be paid by Community Development Block < Irani funds. 
3/20/00. RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance tnd I abort omnrittc* 

Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst, Pam David. Director. Mayor's Or 
Community Development; Daryl Higashi, Deputy Director, Mayor's Office of Housing, Supervisoi 
Supervisor immiano, David Pearson, Head Start, Dr Sorma Tecson, Filipino [merican Council, Janelle 
Pierce, Rosa Park Senior ( enter, Helen Davenport, Father Louis Vitale, St Boniftu e Neighborhood Center. 
Janet Gomes, S F Conservation Corp . Donna Bennett, Milestone, Miguel Wooding, Eviction Collaborative, 
Devra Edelman, Haight Ashbury Food Program, Maurice, Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center, LaDawn 
Law, SFUSD, Child Development Program Tumi Rice-Mitchell, Charles Drew Center Aurora Martmack, 
Betty II . Lisa Gray, Young Community Developers, Clarence Shaw, Housing Conservation and Development 
Cop. Barbara Brown, Homer Marshall, Carlos Romero Mission Housing, Grant Din, isian Neighborhood 
Design; Teresa Vergel, Dominado Purugganan, World War II Veteran Colleen Cassity, Junta Ventures, 
Gary A . Gay Kaplan, Marian Doub, Women far Self Employment, Donna F., Edmond Tong, Asian, Im 
Young, Claudia Viek, Renaissance Entrepreneur Center Continued to April 19, 2000 
< o\ i im I I) i>\ the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



000488 |Grant - 2000 ("DB( . | 
Mayor 

Resolution approving the 2000 ( ommunity Development Program authorizing the Mayor, on behalf of the 
CitJ and County of San Francisco, to accept and expend the City's 2000 Community Development Block 
Giant (CDBG) Entitlement from the U S Department of Housing and Irban Development, and program 
income generated by the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency up to $33,734,275 which include indirect 
costs of SI 60,000; and approving expenditure schedules for recipient departments and agencies for indirect 
costs. 

3/20/00, RK I l\ I DAND \SSIGNI I) to I inane* and I abor Committee 

Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst, Pam David, Dii eeof 

Community Development. Diiryl Higashi, Deputy Director, Mayor's Office of Housing. Supervisoi 
Supervisor Ammiano. David Pearson, Head Start, Dr Norma Tecson. Filipino American Council, Janelle 
Pierce. Rosa Park Senior Center, Helen Davenport. Father Louis Vitale, St ll \hborhood Center , 

Janet Gomes. S F Conservation Corp Donna Bennett. Milestone. Miguel Hooding. Eviction Collaborative. 
Devra Edelman. Haight Ashbury Food Program. Maurice, Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center. LaDawn 
Law. SFUSD, Child Development Program Tami Rice-Mitchell, Charles Drew Center; Aurora Manmack; 
Betn H . Lisa Gray, Young Community Developers, Clarence Shaw. II, . nation and Development 

Corp.; Barbara Brown; Homer Marshall. Carlos Romero Mission Housing; Grant Dm. Asian Seighborhood 

•gel. Dominado Purugganan. World War II Veteran, Colleen Cassity, Juma Ventures; 
Gary K ; Gay Kaplan; Marian Douh. Women for Self Employment; Donna F ; Edmond Tong. Asian. Inc Mr 
Young. Claudia I iek. Renaissance Entrepreneur Center Continued to April 19. 2000. 
CONTIM ED h> the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 10:28 AM on V1V0O 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



April 12, 2000 



000521 [Reserved Funds. Port Commissionl 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds, Port Commission (S.F. Harbor Operating Fund Loan Revenue, 
File 101-97-44; Ordinance No. 40-98), in the amount of S235.343 for the Hyde Street Harbor Landside 
Improvement project. (Port) 

3/22/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Han'ey Rose, Budget Analyst; Imani Haygood. Port. 
APPROVED AND FILED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



000095 [Reserved Funds. Department of Public Health] 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds. Department of Public Health (Fiscal Year 1999-2000 Budget) in 

the amount of S50.000 to fund an actuarial cost analysis to implement the San Francisco Methadone by 

Prescription Program (MPP). (Public Health Department) 

I/1 1/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

2/2/00, CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR. Heard in Committee. Speakers, Ken Bruce, Budget Analyst; Anne Okubo, 

Department of Public Health Department to select contractor and submit contrac; cost details prior to release of reserve. 3/27/00, From 

Department of Public Health, submitting contract cost details. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Haney Rose, Budget Analyst: Anne Okubo, Department of Public Health. 
APPROVED AND FILED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



000235 [Approving the concession leases of Travelex America. Inc. to operate two (2) ATM facilities at the 
Airport, at a minimum annual rent for the first year of S240.500 for each lease| 

Resolution approving two Automated Teller Machine Leases for the existing and New International Terminal 

Buildings between Travelex America. Inc. and the City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through its 

Airport Commission. (Airport Commission) 

2/4/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

3/1/00, CONTINUED. Continued to March 8, 2000. 

3/8/00, CONTINUED. Continued to March 22, 2000. 

3/22/00, CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Jon Ballesteros, 

Airport. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Haney Rose, Budget Analyst. Jon Ballesteros, Airport. Amendment of the 
Whole relating to Proposition F. 

AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING SAME TITLE. 
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



000519 [Authorizing extension and renewal of six (6) existing leases for Public Health Outpatient Mental Health 
Clinics, Wedge Program and Tobacco Program| 

Resolution authorizing extension and renewal of certain existing leases of real property required by the 
Department of Public Health. (Real Estate Department) 
3/22/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst. Tony DeLucchi, Director of Property, 
Department of Real Estate; Judy Shutsmun. Department of Public Health; Supervisor Bierman Amended 
lease No. I from S3, 250 per month to $4,265 per month; same tide 
AMENDED. 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 



Primed of 10:28 AM on 4/U/00 



Finance and Labor Committee Meeting Wnutea Iprii 12, 2000 



000032 [Merced Extension Triangle Condominium Complex] 

Supervisor Anuniano 

Hearing to consider the potential unpads of the 370 unit condominium complex proposed tor the Merced 

Extension Triangle neighborhood 

1/4/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance ami I abort omminee 

Heard in Committee Speakers Supervisor Ammiano, OzEricson, Emerold Fund, Inc., David Johnson, 

( 'hristiani Johnson Architects, Supervisor Bierman, Glen Hatakeyama; Hah Panasewicz, Dwayne Price. 

Mary Stephenson, Maureen Ginella; Lois Tenney, Luther White, George Aquiliva, Sh Wan 

( 'hristensen, Jon Sievert 

( ONTINUED TO ( All. OK THE C II MR. 



ADJOURNMENT 

The meeting adjourned <it ~ 15 p.m 



City and County of San Francisco 6 Printed at 1 0:2fi i\t 



} o. 254- 



Susan Horn 

Government Documents Section 
Main Library 



CITY AND COUNTY 




OF^AN FRANCISCO 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 
FAX (415) 252-0461 



April 6, 2000 
TO: finance and Labor Committee DOCUMENTS DFPT 

FROM: .Budget Analyst APR 1 I 2000 

SUBJECT: April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting g AN r RAWr|C;rn 

PUBLIC LIBRARY 
Item 1 - File 00-0328 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance and Labor Committee at its 
meeting of April 5, 2000. The following report reflects the Amendment of he 
Whole submitted to the Finance and Labor Committee at the April 5, 2000 
meeting. 



Department: 
Item: 



Description: 



Ethics Commission 

Ordinance amending the San Francisco Administrative 
Code to add Article XIIE, Sections 16.549-1 through 
16.549-18, to provide for public financing of election 
campaigns, and to add Article XIIF, Sections 16.550-1 
through 16.550-10, to provide for increased disclosure of 
campaign contributions and expenditures. 

The subject ordinance, as amended by the Amendment of 
the Whole, would provide public funds from a newly 
established Election Campaign Fund to partially defray 
the election campaign costs of each candidate for the 
Board of Supervisors who: 

(1) is eligible to hold office as a member of the Board of 
Supervisors; 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

(2) has received at least $5,000 in contributions of $100 or 
less ' ; 

(3) is opposed by another candidate who is eligible to 
receive public financing, or has received contributions 
or made expenditures of at least $10,000, or in the 
general election has at least $10,000 in independent 
expenditures made against him or her, or in favor of 
an opposing candidate; and 

grees to 

• limit his or her personal contributions to bis or her 
■own campaign to $10,000 (unless the voluntary 

expenditure ceilings set by Section 16.549-6 (d) (4) 
are lifted for the reason.-- outlined in Comment No. 
8 below i : 

• Limit his or her campaign spending per general 
election to $75,000 (unless the voluntary 
expenditure ceilings are lifted for the reasons 
outlined in Comment No. 8 below); 

• participate in at least one debate with his or her 
opponents; and 

• prove compliance with the subject ordinance's 
requirement 

Additional public funds would be available to qualifying 
candidates who must also contest a run-off election. 

Comments: 1. Attachment I. provided by Ms. Naomi Starkman of the 

Ethics Commission, explains (a) the alternative available 
funding sources for the proposed public financing 
program, (b) the projected costs of the original public 
financing program proposal presented to the Finance and 
Labor Committee by the Ethics Commission, and (c) the 
projected costs to the Ethics Commission of administering 
the original public financing program proposal. 

Attachment II. provided by Ms. Starkman. contains 
revised estimates for the personnel and non-personnel 
costs to the Ethics Commission of the public financing 
program as amended by the Amendment of the Whole. 
The Ethics Commission has not estimated the costs to the 
City of the public financing program as amended by the 



1 While a candidate can accept contributions of up to S500 per contributor under the Campaign 
Finance Reform Ordinance, only the first S100 from each contributor would count toward eligibility 
for public funds under the proposed ordinance. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Amendment of the Whole because Ms. Ginny Vida of the 
Ethics Commission advises that Commission staff did not 
have sufficient time to fully analyze the amended 
legislation. 

2. According to Ms. Naomi Starkman of the Ethics 
Commission, currently no municipalities in the United 
States have full public financing of election campaigns, 
while four States have approved, but not implemented, 
full public financing programs 2 . However, a number of 
United States municipalities and States, and the Federal 
Government, operate partial public financing programs. 

3. Although the Ethics Commission proposes funding the 
subject program from General Fund revenues, it has 
conducted research on the following alternative methods 
of funding the program: (a) a surcharge on City-imposed 
business taxes, (b) a surcharge on City-imposed property 
taxes, and (c) voluntary taxpayer contributions. 
Attachment I, Part II, explains the issues associated with 
these alternative funding options. 

4. According to Ms. Julia Moll of the City Attorney's 
Office, the subject ordinance would provide authority for 
the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors to appropriate 
sufficient monies to (a) an Election Campaign Fund 
established under the subject ordinance to partially 
defray the election campaign costs of all eligible 
candidates, and to (b) the Ethics Commission for 
administration costs related to the public financing 
program. However, according to Ms. Moll, such 
appropriations could only be required by a voter-approved 
Charter amendment. Ms. Moll states that this is because 
only voter-approved Charter amendments, rather than 
ordinances, can limit the discretion of the Board of 
Supervisors and the Mayor regarding annual 
appropriations. Ms. Moll states that if the Mayor and the 
Board of Supervisors do not appropriate sufficient funds, 
the public financing program would not operate. 



2 The four States which have approved full public financing programs are Arizona, Maine, 
Massachusetts, and Vermont. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

3 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



5. Under the subject ordinance, as amended by the 
Amendment of the Whole, the Ethics Commission would 
incur additional costs to administer the public financing 
program which would require it to perform a number of 
additional functions: 

• Adoption of regulations to implement the subject 
ordinance and specification of all forms and 
statements required to be filed under the subject 
ordinance; 

• Determination of the annual and supplemental 
appropriation needs of (a) the Election Campaign 
Fund, and (b) the Ethics Commission for 
administration of the public financing program; 

• Certification of candidates' eligibility to receive public 
funds and, in the case of non-certification, reviewing 
appeals; 

• Processing of reports filed by (a) candidates who do not 
receive public funds but who do receive or expend 
funds over a specified threshold, and (b) committees 
which make election campaign contributions over 
specified thresholds 3 ; 

• Processing of copies of electronic, printed, or telephone 
campaign advertisements filed with the Ethics 
Commission; 

• Certification of candidates eligible for additional public 
funds as a result of lifting voluntary expenditure 
ceilings: 

• Audits of all candidates who receive public funds 
under the subject ordinance: 

• Investigation of alleged violations of the subject 
ordinance; 

• Imposition of administrative penalties for violators of 
the subject ordinance: 

• Reports to the Mayor and Board of Supervisors after 
each election on the public financing program; and 

• Preparation and maintenance of the content and 
format of a Citv web site for all local elections. 



3 The reports required by the proposed ordinance are in addition to the campaign disclosure 
requirements imposed by the California Political Reform Act and the San Francisco Campaign 
Finance Reform Ordinance. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

4 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



According to Ms. Starkman, the Ethics Commission would 
need to employ at least three additional full-time 
employees to implement and administer the above 
functions at a total estimated cost of $135,000 per year 
(inclusive of mandatory fringe benefits). The Ethics 
Commission states that it would also need to employ a 
clerical employee during the first six months of the 
program at a total estimated cost of $17,000. Annual non- 
salary operating costs are estimated to be an additional 
$25,000 per year. The total estimated cost in the first 
year -would therefore be approximately $177,000 (as 
shown in Attachment II, Table 1). 

6. According to Ms. Vida, the Ethics Commission has not 
included in its FY 2000-2001 budget request any 
additional funding for the new Ethics Commission 
functions related to the proposed public financing 
program. Ms. Vida states that if the proposed public 
financing program is approved, then the Ethics 
Commission would request additional FY 2000-2001 
funding through a supplemental appropriation. 

7. Under the Amendment of the Whole, unless the 
voluntary expenditure ceilings are Lifted (see Comment 
No. 8), the maximum amount of public funds that a 
candidate for the Board of Supervisors could receive 
under the proposed public financing program would be (a) 
up to $37,500 for a general election (which is 50 percent of 
the $75,000 voluntary expenditure ceiling for a general 
election), and (b) up to 100 percent of the $20,000 
voluntary expenditure ceiling for a run-off election. 
Candidates who receive public funds for a run-off election 
would not be permitted to spend private contributions or 
personal funds for campaign purposes, unless the 
voluntary expenditure ceilings are lifted. 

8. Under the Amendment of the Whole, there would be 
two triggers for lifting the voluntary expenditure ceiling 
in a supervisorial district. Firstly, the voluntary 
expenditure ceiling would cease to be binding on any 
candidate running m a supervisorial district if any 
candidate in the same district who is not participating in 
the public financing program receives contributions, has 
cash on hand, or makes campaign expenditures in excess 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

5 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



of the applicable voluntary expenditure ceiling. Secondly, 
the voluntary expenditure ceiling would cease to be 
binding if independent expenditures against any 
candidate participating in the public financing program, 
or in support of any opposing candidate in that 
supervisorial district, exceed 25 percent of the applicable 
voluntary expenditure ceiling. If the voluntary 

expenditure ceiling are lifted because of spending by 
candidates not participating in the public financing 
program, eligible candidates would be entitled to receive 
an additional $1 in public funds for every $1 raised or 
spent. However, if the voluntary expenditure ceilings are 
lifted because of independent expenditures against 
candidates participating in the public financing program 
or in support of opposing candidates, the candidates 
targeted by li aditures would be entitled to £1 in 

public funds for every SI in independent expenditures 
above 25 percent of the voluntary expenditure ceiling. 
The maximum additional public funds which could be 
awarded by the City would be 100 percent of the 
voluntary expenditure ceiling for a general election and 
200 percent of the voluntary expenditure ceiling for a run- 
off election. 

9. In summary, therefore, the costs to the City of the 
proposed public financing program, as amended by the 
Amendment of the Whole, would be determined in each 
Board of Supervisors election cycle by the following 
variables: 

• The number of candidates who qualify for public 
financing in each general election (each one can 
receive up to $37,500 in public funds in a general 
election); 

• The number of candidates who qualify' for public 
financing in each run-off election (each one can receive 
up to $20,000 in public funds in a run-off election): 

• How many supervisorial districts have the voluntary 
expenditure ceilings lifted in a general election, and 
how many of the candidates in each of those 
supervisorial districts are eligible for increased public 
financing (each eligible candidate could receive up to 
$75,000 in public funds in a general election); and 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

6 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



• How many supervisorial districts have the voluntary 
expenditure ceilings lifted in a run-off election, and 
how many of the candidates in each of those 
supervisorial districts are eligible for increased public 
financing (each eligible candidate could receive up to 
$40,000 in public funds in a run-off election). 

10. Under the Amendment of the Whole, Article XIIF, 
Sections 16.550-1 through 16.550-10, would be added to 
the subject ordinance to provide for increased disclosure 
of campaign contributions and expenditures, and other 
information, through: 

• Additional pre-election disclosure of election campaign 
contributions and expenditures; 

• The filing of electronic, printed, or telephone election 
campaign advertisements; 

• Disclosure of the funder of telephone advertisements 
and polls; and 

• The creation of a City web site for all local government 
elections. 

11. Equipment purchased by candidates with public 
funds which is worth at least $100 and has continued 
useful life would become City property after the election. 
Candidates who receive public funds but who withdraw or 
fail to qualify for the ballot would be required to repay the 
full amount of public funds received. Candidates who 
have surplus public funds, or who have received amounts 
in excess of their entitlement, would be required to return 
the unexpended or excess funds to the Election Campaign 
Fund. Under the subject ordinance, candidates who were 
required to repay monies would not be required to pay 
interest on those repayments. 

12. Violators of the public financing provisions of the 
subject ordinance could be subject to administrative, civil, 
and criminal penalties if they (a) willfully, knowingly, or 
negligently misuse public funds, or (b) provide false or 
misleading information to, or conceal information from, 
the Ethics Commission in relation to the subject public 
financing program. Violators could be liable to pay a fine 
of up to $5,000 (or, in the case of (a), three times the 
amount improperly spent, whichever is greater), or could 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

7 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Commit! 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

be imprisoned for up to six months, or both. Violators of 
the reporting and disclosure provisions of the subject 
ordinance, as added by the Amendment of the Whole, 
could be liable to pay a fine of between $500 and $5,000, 
or three times the amount not properly reported, 
whichever is greater, or could be imprisoned for up to six 
months, or both. 

Recommendation: Approval of the subject ordinance is a policy matter for 

the Hoard of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 




Ethics Commission 

City and County of San Francisco 



Attachment I 
Pase 1 of 5 



Isabella H- Grant 
Chairperson 

Henri E. Norris 
Vice-Chairperson 

Robert D. 
dockendoref 
Commissioner 

Carol M. Kingsley 
Commissioner 

Paul H. Melbostad 
Commissioner 

Virginia E. Vida 

Executive Director 



Date: 
To: 

From: 



I. 



March 7, 2000 

Alan Gibson 

Office of the Budget Analyst 

Naomi Starkman^_> 
Deputy Executive Director 

Projected Costs of the Ethics Commission's Proposal for Public Financing of 
Election Camoaiens 



Introduction 



Your office has asked the Ethics Commission to determine the costs associated with the 
Commission's proposal for public financing of election campaigns. The purpose of this 
memorandum is to: 1) summarize the funding alternatives associated with the public financing 
program; 2) estimate the projected budget of the proposed Election Campaign Fund; and 
3) estimate the costs to the Ethics Commission associated with administration of the proeram. 



II. 



Funding Sources 



Although the Commission's proposal contemplates funding the public financing proeram through 
the City's General Fund, the Commission asked its staff to research funding alternatives for the 
program. The results of the staffs research are discussed in a February 16, 2000 memorandum 
to the Board of Supervisors entitled, "Report on Funding Alternatives to the General Fund for a 
Public Financing Program," and are summarized below. 

1 . Comparative Information of other Public Finance Programs 

Prior to making its recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, Commission staff studied four 
cities that have partial public financing of campaigns: Los Angeles, New York City, Long 
Beach and Tucson. In addition, the City of Oakland recently approved a public financing 
program. All five municipalities fund their public finance programs through their City's General 
Fund. Based on the successful experiences of these jurisdictions, the Commission proposes to 
fund San Francisco's public financing program through the City's General Fund. 

Staff also reviewed the laws of several states that have enacted (but have yet to implement) full 
public financing of campaigns: Arizona, Maine, Vermont and Massachusetts. Tne Commission 
did not discuss in detail any of the alternative funding options contemplated in these jurisdictions. 

Arizona funds its program through the following sources: 1) a S 100 annual fee imposed on 
registered lobbyists representing for-profit interests; 2) an additional surcharge often percent 
imposed on all civil and criminal fines and penalties; 3) a five-dollar voluntary contribution 
check-off on tax return forms; and 4) voluntary donations and tax credits, not to exceed S500 or 
20 percent of a resident's annual state income tax liability, whichever is greater. 



1390 Market Street, Suite 801 • San Francisco. CA 94102-5302 • Phone (415) 554-9510 • Fax (415) 554-8757 
E-Mail Address: ethics_cornmissioruaci.sf.ca.us Web site: http://www.ci.sf.ca.us. chics 



Attachment I 
Alan Gibson i'age Z ot i> 

Office of the Budget Analyst 
March 7, 2000 
Page 2 

Maine has a special, dedicated, non-lapsing Fund and any interest generated by the Fund is credited to the 
Fund. The following sources of funding must be deposited in the Fund 1 ) S2 million in revenues from 
sales and use taxes and income taxes and credited to the General Fund; 2) a tax check-off program 
allowing Maine residents to designate S3 be paid into the Fund, and 3) late filing penalties and penalties for 
violations of the Maine Clean Elections Act. The Massachusetts Clean Election Fund receives its funding 
from voluntary check-off on the state income tax forms and from appropriations by the state legislature. 
Funds are capped at one tenth of one percent of the state budget. 

Vermont does not set aside an amount for its Campaign Finance Fund The Fund's revenue sources 
include: 1) grant funds unused by publicly funded candidates; 2) penalties and fines levied for violations of 
all sections of the campaign finance la>v, 3) 40 percent of the amounts paid as annual report fees by 
domestic corporations under Vermont law and 33 percent of the amounts paid as annual report fees bv 
foreign corporations under Vermont law; 4) all amounts collected from the tax on lobbying expenditures 
imposed under Vermont law, 5) any gifts received by the fund; 6) any amounts appropriate to the Vermont 
campaign fund by act of the general assembly; and 7) all principal and interest of the Fund 

Staff also reviewed the federal public finance program. Eligible presidential candidates running in the 
primary election receive partial public financing and the candidates who are nominated for the general 
election receive a full grant of public funds. Funding for the federal program comes from the S3 check-off 
that appears on federal income tax forms. While disbursements from the fund arc indexed to inflation, the 
S3 tax check-off is not. 

2. Surcharges on Citv-Imposed Taxes 

.Although the Commission did not contemplate funding the program through a surcharge, the staff discussed 
this option with Chief Assistant Treasurer Jay Banneld and Controller Edward Harrington. According to 
Chief Assistant Treasurer Banfield, the City collects business taxes and property taxes. Business taxes 
include receipts and payroll taxes; hotel tax; parking tax; stadium operator tax; and a transient occupancv 
tax. Property taxes include secured tax; unsecured tax; supplemental property transfer tax, and a utihtv 
users tax. 

The City could consider the possibility of a surcharge on the following business feesAaxes: business 
registration license fees (which produce S 10 million/year), parking violation fines and parking taxes. The 
City could also consider setting aside a portion of the City's property tax (which produces S600 
million/year). According to Controller Harrington, the utility users tax, which is paid only by commercial 
users, yields about S60 million per year. A two percent surcharge on the utility users tax would produce 
about S 1 .2 million per year. However, much of the revenue from property taxes is already committed to 
funding certain City programs. 

Tne California Constitution requires San Francisco voter approval for any tax increase tc eeneral taxes or 
special taxes. Tne City may not impose, extend or increase any general tax unless the tax is submitted to 
the electorate and approved by a majority vote. Tne City may not impose, extend or increase anv special 
tax (for example, for a public financing program) unless the tax is submitted to the electorate and amnjvtd 
by a two-thirds vote. (See Cal. Constitution .Article 13(C)(2).) According to Controller Harrington, 
because a fee is only allowed to recover the costs of providing a service, a surcharge on a fee would 
probably be considered a tax subject to voter approval. 



in 



Attachment I 

Alan Gibson ~ ° 

Office of the Budget Analyst 
March 7, 2000 
Page 3 

3 . Voluntary Contributions 

As another alternative source of funding, the Chy could also solicit contributions from taxpayers for the 
public finan cing program. The City currently solicits contributions from taxpayers to fund youth and 
children services. (See S.F. Admin. Code Chapter 51 A.) 

The Chy could request voluntary contributions through voter registration cards, voter information 
pamphlets and other materials distributed by the Ethics Commission or the Department of Elections. The 
revenue from these contributions could be set aside in the Election Campaign Fund, which is specificallv 
designed for disbursing public funds to eligible candidates. 

However, based on the data gathered by staff and conversations with representatives of jurisdictions that 
have voluntary contributions, such programs have proven unsuccessful. For example, public participation 
in the federal tax check-off has gradually decreased in recent years from a high of 28 percent in 1980 to 
less than 12 percent in 1997. 

III. Projected Election Campaign Fund Budget 

Tne projected budget for the proposed Election Campaign Fund depends on the number of vacant seats per 
district and the number of candidates that qualify for public financing and whether run-off elections are 
required. 

In the 2000 general election, all 1 1 seats for the Board of Supervisors will be vacant. After the 2000 
general election, the clerk of the Board of Supervisors will determine by lot whether the supervisors elected 
from the even or odd-numbered districts will have terms expiring in two or four years. (.See Charter 
Section 13.1 10(f).) Accordingly, there will be either five or six. vacant seats in 2002 and 2004. For 
purposes of this memorandum, it is assumed that there will be five vacant seats in the 2002 general election 
and six vacant seats in the 2004 general election. 

Because it is difficult to predict a minimum or maximum cost of the program, the Commission staff 
developed assumptions as to how many candidates will participate in the program in the next three general 
elections. (See Attachment 1: Cost Projections for Public Financing Proposal.) The attachment assumes 
that at least two candidates per district will receive public financing in the general election and at least one 
candidate per district will receive public financing in the run-off election. Based on these assumptions, the 
staff estimated a range of projected costs for all three elections, as described below in Table 1. 

Table 1 



| Year 


| Range of Costs 


| 2000 


| $1.007.000 -S2.728.000 


2002 


| S467.000 - 51,240.000 


1 2004 


I S557.000-S1.488.000 



IV. Projected Administrative Costs to the Ethics Commission 

The administrative costs associated with the program depend, in part, on the number of candidates that 
apply for public financing. The number of candidates in a particular election will affect the amount of time 
staff will spend on the certification and appeals process and the total number of audits to be performed. 
Most of the administrative costs are projected for personnel needs. It is important to note that with a full- 
time staff of seven, the Ethics Commission is not able to fulfill all of its current Charter mandates. For this 



11 



Attachment I 
Alan Gibson Page 5 of 5 

Office of the Budget Analyst 
March 7, 2000 
Page 4 

reason, it is imperative that the Commission obtain additional staff to administer the public finance 
program. 

The Commission estimates that it will need at least two additional full-time professional employees to 
implemen' and administer the program.' However, the cost to the Ethics Commission might be greater at 
the outset of the program, considering the short timeframe contemplated for enactment of the proposal. It 
may be necessary to hire three full-time employees (two professional employees and one clerical emplovee) 
for a period of six months in order to implement the proposal and thereafter reduce the total number of 
additional staff to two. In addition, the Commission estimates that there will be non-personnel costs 
associated with the program, such as resources for additional personnel and costs for materials and 
mailings. The estimated administrative costs are described below in Table 2. 

Table 2 



Item 1 Amount 


Salaries of 2 FT professional emDloyees : SI 00.000 


Salarv of 1 FT clerical cmolovee (a. 6 months 1 SI 7.000 


Non-personnel costs 1 520,000 


Total | S137,000 



If the proposal is implemented in this fiscal year, the Commission would be required to request a 
supplemental appropriation for its FY 2000-2001 budget. Some minal start-up costs, such as drafting 
regulations, manuals and forms, may be required to be absorbed by the Commission's current budget. 

The proposal has fiscal implications for other City departments, including the offices of the Controller and 
the City Attorney. The proposal provides that the Commission may request the assistance of the Controller 
in the review process and requires the Controller to disburse payments to candidates from the Fund. The 
proposal also provides that the Controller assist in conducting audits of all candidates who receive public 
financing. The City Attorney's Office, which is the legal advisor to the Ethics Commission, would assist 
the Commission staff in drafting implementing regulations. 

The staff gathered information about the administrative costs in jurisdictions that have partial public 
financing programs. It is important to note that most of the jurisdictions provide pubbc financing to 
candidates running for several elected offices, such as the office of Mayor, City Attorney, District Attorney 
and/or Controller. The Ethics Commission proposes providing funding only to candidates for the Board of 
Supervisors. Also, please note that some of the cities that have public finance programs have agencies that 
only handle campaign finance issues, such as the New York City Campaign Finance Board. The San 
Francisco Ethics Commission handles a \ariety of issues, including, but not limited to, campaien finance 
laws. 

The Los Angeles City Ethics Commission, which like the San Francisco Ethics Commission administers a 
variety of programs, could not provide specific information regarding overall administrative costs of its 
public finance program. In addition to the several auditors who audit publicly financed candidates. Los 
.Angeles employed roughly 1 Yi Anah'sts in the most recent ejection to administer the program for four 



One employee would administer the program, including creating all necessary forms, mamiaU and training 
materials, giving advice and reviewing all submined documentation. The other employee would work with the 
Controller's office to conduct audits of all participating candidates. 
* This amount includes mandatory fringe benefits. 



12 



Attachment I 
Alan Gibson ^age D or 5 

Office of the Budget Analyst 
March 7, 2000 
Page 5 

months at a cost of S18,000. 3 The New York City- Campaign Finance Board was not able to provide 
specific information regarding the administrative costs of its public financing program. The Board's total 
budget is estimated at S3 milli on^ including S2 million in personnel costs for its 47 staff members. Tne 
City of Long Beach could not provide an estimate regarding the cost of administration of its program. The 
City of Tucson provided staff with some information regarding the cost of auditing participating 
candidates, which it estimated were S 14,725 in 1997, but it did not have specific information about overall 
administrative costs. The City of Oakland recently passed a public financing proposal which sets aside 7.5 
percent of that city's Election Campaign Fund of S230,00O for the cost of administration to the Oakland 
City Ethics Commission and the City Auditor, or S 17,250. 

I hope you find this memo responsive td your inquiries. If you have questions, or need additional 
information, please contact me at (415) 554-95 10. 



WE7HICS-0 1 S VR\DATA\SHARED\Public Fmanc^Sudgc. Anaiys\BudgnAnalyfi2.doc 



Tnis amount does not include auditing costs or costs associated with training, the issuance of advice, or materials. 
More importantly, these figures change on an annual basis, depending on the number of candidates running for 
office and the number of participants in the public financing program. Tne Los .Angeles Ethics Commission could 
not estimate the costs incurred by the Controller with respect to releasing public funds to candidates. 



13 




Ethics Commission 

City and County of San Francisco 



Attachment i; 
Page 1 o7 3 



Isabella H Grant 
Chairperson 

Henri E. Norris 
Vice-Chairperson 

Robert D. 
Dockendorff 
Commissioner 

Carol M Kjngsley 
Commissioner 

Paul H. Melbostad 
Commissioner 

Virginia E. Vida 
Execltive Director 



Date April 6, 2000 

To Alan Gibson 

Office of the Budget Analyst 

From Naomi Starkman i~£f 

Deputy Executive Director 

Re Revised Administrative Costs associated with Supervisor Ammiano's Proposal 

for Public Financing of Election Campaigns 



I. 



Introduction 



Your office previously asked the Ethics Commission to determine the costs associated with the 
Commission's proposal for public financing of election campaigns [See March 7. 2000 Ethics 
Commission memorandum ) At the April 5, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee meeting, the 
Commission's proposal was significant!) changed by an .Amendment to the Whole submitted by 
Supervisor Ammiano Your office has now asked the Commission to determine the estimated 
additional administrative costs associated with Supervisor Ammiano's proposal Please note that 
the Commission has not estimated the costs to the City associated with Supervisor .Ammiano's 
proposal to disburse public funds to eligible candidates 



II. 



Revised Administrative Costs to the Ethics Commission 



As noted in our March 7, 2000 memo, the administrative costs associated with the program 
depend, in part, on the number of candidates that apply for public financing The number of 
candidates in a particular election will affect the amount of time staff will spend on the 
certification and appeals process and the total number of audits to be performed 

A. Personnel Costs 

Most of the administrative costs arc projected for personnel needs It is important to note that 
with a full-time staff of seven, the Ethics Commission is not able to fulfill all of its current 
Charter mandates For this reason, it is imperative that the Commission obtain additional staff to 
administer the public finance program The Commission estimates that it will need at least three 
additional full-time professional employees to implement and administer the program It also 
estimates that it will need one clerical, part-time employee at the outset of the program for a 
period of six months 

1 Public Finance Administrator 

This employee will administer the program, including creating all necessary forms, manuals and 
training materials, giving advice and reviewing all submitted documentation for the purpose of 
certification After the election, this person will prepare a report to the Board and the Mayor on 
the effectiveness of the public financing program, and will assist in performing audits of 



1390 Market Street. Suite 801 • San Francisco. CA 94102-5302 • Phone (415) 554-9510 • Fax (41 ; 

E-Mail Address ethics commissioned sfca.us Website: http://www.ci.sf.ca us ethics 

14 



Attachment II 
Page 2 of 3 



Alan Gibson 

Office of the Budget Analyst 

April 6, 2000 

Page 2 

campaign statements filed by participating candidates. This full-time position wall be compensated at 
$55,000, including fringe benefits. 

2. Public Finance Auditor 

This employee will work with the Controller's office to conduct audits of all participating candidates to 
determine eligibility. He/she will also absorb the duties associated with the new mandate to certify 
candidates eligible for additional public funds if the voluntary spending limits are lifted. This full-time 
position will be compensated at S50.000. including fringe benefits. 

3. Elections Website Administrator 

Acting as a liaison with candidates and ballot measure committees, the Department of Elections, and the 
Department of Telecommunications and Information Services, this employee will implement and maintain 
the newly mandated City website for elections. This person will be responsible for the content and format 
of the website, including the format for debates. He/she will be employed on a full-time, seasonal basis for 
a period of seven months, at a cost of S30.000, including fringe benefits. 

Because the cost to the Ethics Commission will be greater at the outset of the program (considering the 
short timeframe contemplated for enactment of the proposal), it will also be necessary to hire one clerical 
employee for a period of six months in order to implement the proposal, at a one-time cost of $17,000 
without fringe benefits 

B. Non-Personnel Costs 

In addition, the Commission estimates that there will be non-personnel costs associated with the program, 
such as resources for additional personnel and costs for materials and mailmgs. These costs will be 
increased due to additional mandates proposed by the Amendment to the Whole. The Commission had 
previously estimated non-personnel costs at $20,000. Due to the necessity of hiring an additional person 
and additional processing of copies of electronic, printed and telephone campaign advertisements, the 
Commission now estimates its non-personnel costs at $25,000. The additional $5,000 mcludes the cost of 
new filing cabinets, additional mailmgs and reproduction costs. The revised estimated administrative costs 
are described below in Table 1 

Table 1 



Item 


Amount 


Salaries of 3 FT professional employees 


$135,000 


Salary of 1 FT clerical employee (3^ 6 months 


$17,000 


Non-personnel costs 


$25,000 


Total | $177,000 



If the proposal is implemented m this fiscal year, the Commission would be required to request a 
supplemental appropriation for its FY 2000-2001 budget Some initial start-up costs, such as drafting 
regulations, manuals and forms, may be required to be absorbed by the Commission's current budget. 
The proposal has fiscal implications for other City departments, including the offices of the Controller and 
the City Attorney The proposal provides that the Commission may request the assistance of the Controller 
in the review process and requires the Controller to disburse payments to candidates from the Fund The 
proposal also provides that the Controller assist in conducting audits of all candidates who receive public 
financing The City Attorney's Office, which is the legal advisor to the Ethics Commission, would assist 



15 



Attachment II 
Alan Gibson Page 3 of 3 

Office of the Budget Analyst 
April 6, 2000 
Page 3 

the Commission staff in drafting implementing regulations Finally, there may be additional costs to the 
Department of Telecommunications and Information Services with respect to any website administration 
provided to the Ethics Commission or for development of online filing for public finance information 

I hope you find this memo responsive to your inquiries If you have questions, or need additional 
information, please contact me at (415) ^^4-V? 1 



1 I HICS-01SVR DATA\SHARED\Public Finance Budget AmlyH HudgelAnalysO doc 



16 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 2 -File 99-2317 

Department: Superior Court 

Item: Ordinance amending Article XIII, Chapter 10, Part 

I of the San Francisco Municipal Code 
(Administrative Code) by adding Section 10.117- 
125 to impose a surcharge of $5 for the filing in 
Superior Court of specified initial pleadings and to 
appropriate the surcharge to pay costs, excluding 
capital outlay, related to the maintenance of 
Children's Waiting Rooms at the Hall of Justice 
and Civic Center Courthouse. 

Description: California Standards of Judicial Administration 

require that each court endeavor to provide a 
supervised children's waiting room in courthouses 
that are open during normal court hours. To help 
defray the cost of operating these children's waiting 
rooms, in 1999, the California Legislature enacted 
Assembly Bill 177, which was codified as California 
Government Code Section 26826.3 to enable Boards 
of Supervisors to impose surcharges on the initial 
filings of specified Superior Court pleadings to fund 
the operation and maintenance of such children's 
waiting rooms. 

The proposed ordinance would impose a $5 
surcharge on the initial filings of pleadings in 
specified Superior Court cases to fund the operation 
and maintenance of existing Children's Waiting 
Rooms in the Hall of Justice and the Civic Center 
Courthouse. The proposed ordinance would also 
permit such funds to be used for Children's Waiting 
Rooms in any other San Francisco courthouse, 
which may be developed in the future. 

The proposed ordinance would also establish a 
Courthouse Children's Waiting Rooms Special 
Fund for deposit of the surcharges collected. The 
County Clerk would be responsible for remitting 
the $5 surcharges to the Controller's Office on a 
monthly basis, and the Controller would be 
responsible for maintaining and recording all 
receipts and expenditures from this Fund. The 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

17 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Fund could be used to pay any costs, excluding 
capital, related to the Children's Waiting Rooms. 
Such expenditures, although limited for use for the 
Children's Waiting Rooms, would be determined by 
the Chief Executive Officer of the Court, in 
consultation with the Presiding Judge of the Court, 
the Supervising Judge of the Unified Family Court, 
and the provider, which is currently the Northern 
California Service League, a non-profit 
organization that operates the Children's Waiting 
Rooms. All of such expenditures would be subject to 
appropriation approval by the Board of 
Supervisors, according to Ms. Amy Ackerman of the 
City Attorney's Ofl 

In addition to the surcharge revenues to be 
deposited to the Courthouse Children's Waiting 
Room Special Fund, under the proposed ordinance, 
all donations of cash and noncash gifts for these 
Children's Waiting Rooms would be accepted and 
deposited in the proposed new Courthouse 
Children's Waiting Room Special Fund. Ms. Amy 
A< kerman of the City Attorney's < Hike advises that 
noncash gifts (i.e., furnishings, books, etc.) would 
be accepted and placed in the Children's Waiting 
Room. In addition, all interest earned on the Fund 
would be credited to the Fund and any balance 
remaining in the Fund at the close of any fiscal 
year will be automatically carried forward. Ms. 
Ackerman advises that all gifts of cash and interest 
earnings would be subject to the Board of 
Supervisors appropriation approval. 

Comments: 1. According to Mr. Neal Taniguichi of the Superior 

Court, the costs to design and construct the 
Children's Waiting Room at the Civic Center 
Courthouse were included in the overall costs of 
constructing the new Courthouse, which was 
completed in January of 1998. Mr. Taniguichi 
advises that the costs to design and construct the 
Children's Waiting Room at the Hall of Justice, 
which was completed in 1991, was paid for with 
private and local grant funds. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

18 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

2. In accordance with the proposed ordinance, the 
$5 surcharge would be imposed for the filing in 
Superior Court of (1) a complaint, petition, or other 
first paper in a civil or probate action of special 
proceeding, (2) a first paper on behalf of any 
defendant, respondent, intervenor, or adverse 
party, (3) a motion for change of venue from 
another court or (4) a first paper on behalf of any 
party in a proceeding under Section 98.2 of the 
California Labor Code. The proposed ordinance also 
states that no party will be required to pay the $5 
surcharge more than once in any action. 

3. According to Mr. Taniguichi, $5 is the maximum 
surcharge fee allowed by the recent State law. Mr. 
Taniguichi advises that the Superior Court 
estimates that the proposed $5 surcharge will 
result in approximately $188,000 annually in 
revenues, based on the projected 37,600 annual 
filings in the Superior Court. Mr. Taniguichi 
reports that, if the proposed ordinance is approved, 
the Court would begin to impose the proposed $5 
surcharge fee as soon as possible and would include 
such revenues, and the applicable requested 
expenditures in the Superior Court's FY 2000-01 
budget. Such expenditures would then be subject to 
review and appropriation approval by the Board of 
Supervisors. 

4. Mr. Taniguichi advises that the Superior Court 
currently has a contract with the Northern 
California Service League, a non-profit 
organization to operate the two Children's Waiting 
Rooms, one in the Hall of Justice and one in the 
Civic Center Courthouse. According to Mr. 
Taniguichi, the current contract with the Northern 
California Service League is for $121,848 annually 
to operate both of the Children's Waiting Rooms. 
Mr. Taniguichi advises that these contract costs of 
$121,848 are currently paid by the City's General 
Fund. 

5. Therefore, Mr. Taniguichi advises that if the 
proposed ordinance is approved, and the $5 
surcharge is imposed, it should provide a 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

19 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12. 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



permanent reliable funding source for 
Children's Waiting Room operations and 
maintenance. As a result, Mr. Taniguichi further 
advises that the City's General Fund would no 
longer be needed to support this Court operation, 
resulting in a direct savings to the City's General 
Fund of approximately $122,000 annually. 
However, if the proposed ordinance is approved, all 
of the costs for the funding for the Children's 
Waiting Rooms must be absorbed by only those 
persons who file the applicable papers with the 
Superior Court as described in Comment No. 2 
above. However, Mr. Taniguichi advises that the 
Judge in the Superior Court can waive these filing 
for indigent cases. 

6. Ms. Shirley Melnicoe, the Executive Director of 
the Northern California Service League provided 
the budget, contained in the Attachment, • which 
identifies the uses of the existing $121,848 annual 
budget. Ms. Melnicoe advises that there is one full- 
time Coordinator and two part-time Assistant 
employees at the Civic Center Children's Waiting 
Room and one full-time Coordinator and one full- 
time Assistant employee at the Hall of Justice. Ms. 
Melnicoe reports that the Children's Waiting 
Rooms are open for use between the hours of 8:30 
am to 12pm. and 1pm to 4:30pm on days that the 
Court is in session. According to Ms. Melnicoe, the 
Children's Waiting Rooms are available for use by 
persons using the courts (such as family court 
clients, criminal defendants and jurors), at no 
charge, but are not available as a permanent 
childcare facility for court employees. 

7. The Budget Analyst notes that the proposed $5 
surcharge would generate an estimated $188,000 
annually. However, as noted above, the costs to 
maintain and operate the Children's Waiting 
Rooms is currently $121,848. Since the proposed (a) 
surcharge revenues can only be used to operate and 
maintain the Children's Waiting Rooms in the two 
Courthouses currently, (b) the estimated costs to 
operate such Children's Waiting Rooms is currently 
$121,848 and (c) a $4 surcharge, based on the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

20 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12. 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

projected 37,600 annual filings, would generate an 
estimated $150,400 annually, the Budget Analyst 
recommends that the proposed surcharge be 
reduced by $1, from $5 to $4. 

Recommendations: Amend the proposed ordinance to reduce the 

proposed surcharge from $5 to $4. Approval of the 
proposed ordinance, as amended, is a pohcj T matter 
for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

21 



Feb 16 00 10:39a 



Cal. Service League 



1415 1 863- 1 882 



P- 2 



Attachment 



I. Contract Budget 

Line Item 

Personnel 

Program Coordinator 

Assistant (I Fit) 

Executive Director (5%, each) 

Fringe Benefits 

Total Personnel 

Operating Expenses 
Insurance 
Telephone 

Materials and Supplies 
Maintenance 
Reproduction 

Total Operating Expenses 

TOTAL Waiting Room Expenses 



Appendix B. 








Budget and Calculation of Chi 


irges 






Hall of Justice 


C\ 


vie Center 


Total 


$26,000 
18.720 
2.600 




$26,000 
18,720 
2.600 


$52,000 

37.440 

5,200 


9.464 




9464 


18,928 


S56.784 




$56,784 


$113,568 


$1,200 

600 

1.200 

900 

240 




$1,200 

600 

1.200 

900 

240 


$2,400 

1.200 

2.400 

1,800 

480 


S4.I40 




$4,140 


$8,280 


$60.<>24 




S60.924 


S121.S48 



Calculation of Charges 

Budget Total $121,848 

Monthly payment to contractor (Budget total / 12) $10,154 



P500 (7-99) 



PageB-1 



22 



Memo to Finance Committee and Labor Committee 
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 3 - File 00-0483 

Department: Department of Public Health (DPH) 

Department of Real Estate (DRE) 

Item: Resolution authorizing a new lease agreement at 238 Eddy 

Street (Windsor Hotel) for the Department of Public 
Health's SSI Evaluation Program. 

Location: The proposed lease is for the rental of the ground floor, and 

portions of the basement and mezzanine areas of the 
Windsor Hotel at 238 Eddy Street, a City leased residential 
hotel. 



Purpose of Lease: 



To provide a central location for the DPH staff responsible 
for (a) determining eligibility of disabled persons and other 
adults for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits, 
and (b) assisting potential recipients to complete the 
documentation required to receive SSI benefits. 



Lessor: 
Lessee: 



No. of Sq. Ft. and 
Cost Per Month: 



Annual Cost: 



238 Windsor Associates. 

City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through 
the Department of Public Health. 

5,657 square feet at a monthly rental rate of $3,500 
(approximately $0.62 per square foot) in Year One of the 
subject lease. 

$42,000 in Year One of the proposed lease, increasing to 
$59,779 in Year Ten of the lease. 



Annual Percentage 
Rent Increases: 



Four percent 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

23 



Memo to Finance Committee and Labor Committ.'i- 
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Utilities and: 
Janitorial Services: 



Term of Lease: 
Right of Renewal: 
Source of Funds: 



Description: 



Comments: 



Utilities will be provided by the City and janitorial services 
will be paid by the City under contract with the John 
Stewart Company. 

Ten Years (May 1, 2000 to April 30, 2010). 

None 

$10,400 including $7,000 for rent budgeted m (Ik- FY 1999- 
2000 DPH General Fund budget for two months, May to 
June of 2000, in addition to utilities and janitorial services. 
Funding for future years will be requested in the DPH's 
Tom Waddell Health Center's budget. 

The proposed resolution would authorize a new ten 
lease of 5,657 square fe< I "f space at the Windsor Hotel at 
238 Eddy Street from 238 Windsor Associates to provide a 

central location for DPH staff to determine whether 
disabled and other adults are eligible for monthly SSI 
payments. The primary mission of the SSI Evaluation 
Program is to assist disabled and other adults to receive 
SSI benefits. DPH proposes to relocate the program to 
improve accessibilm ices for SSI clients. 

1. According to Ms. Daisy Leyva of DPH, under the current 
DPH Housing Services residential lease agreement with 
the Windsor Hotel, the City leases 45,800 square feet at a 
monthly rate of $31,000 (approximately $0.68 per square 
foot). The Windsor Hotel has been leased as a residential 
Hotel since May 1999. There are 94 residential units in the 
Windsor Hotel of which (a) 75 of the units are occupied by 
persons who have been referred by the Department of 
Human Service (DHS) or DPH. and (b) 19 units are 
occupied by tenants under prior lease agreements. 

2. The City has operated the residential portion of the 
Windsor Hotel under lease since May of 1999. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

2k 



Memo to Finance Committee and Labor Committee 
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



3. DPH's SSI Evaluation Program is currently managed by 
a staff of 16 and temporarily located at the Department of 
Human Services facility at 1235 Mission Street which 
occupies 400 square feet of dedicated space. Staff also use 
shared space at that location. According to Ms. Leyva, this 
proposed lease would allow the 16 staff of the SSI 
Evaluation Program to relocate from the DHS facility on 
Mission Street to the Windsor Hotel. In addition, four staff 
from DPH's Homeless Death Prevention Program would 
also relocate from their current location at the Tom 
Waddell Health Center at 50 Ivy Street into the proposed 
office space. The new proposed location would therefore 
accommodate a total staff of 20 in 5,657 square feet. 
Therefore, the Windsor Hotel facility would provide the SSI 
Evaluation Program with dedicated space of 5,257 square 
feet more than the space available at 1235 Mission Street. 
Ms. Leyva notes that the additional 5,257 square feet of 
space at the Windsor Hotel would also provide private office 
space for consultation with clients, as well as general office 
space and conference rooms. 

4. According to Ms. Leyva, if the SSI Evaluation Program 
relocates to the Windsor Hotel under the proposed lease, 
the Department of Human Services would use the 400 
square feet of vacated space at the 1235 Mission Street 
facility for additional space for DHS caseworkers. 

5. The Homeless Death Prevention Program occupies 
approximately 300 square feet of space at the Tom Waddell 
Health Center. According to Ms. Leyva, if the Homeless 
Death Prevention unit relocates to the Windsor Hotel under 
this proposed lease, it would relieve congestion at the Tom 
Waddell Health Center. 

6. According to Ms Leyva, if the City enters into the 
proposed lease, DPH would expend $140,000 to build 
general office space and private offices for consultations. 
DPH reports that funds are available in their FY 1999 - 
2000 budget. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

25 



Memo to Finance Committee and Labor Committee 
April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

7. Mr. Mark Zuffo, of the Department of Real Estate, has 
stated that the proposed lease represents fair market rental 
value. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for 
the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

26 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 4 - File 00-0486 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Grant Period: 
Description: 



REVISED 4/7/00 

Mayor's Office of Community Development (MOCD) 

Resolution approving the FY 2000-2001 Emergency Shelter 
Grants Program and expenditure schedule and authorizing the 
Mayor, on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco, to 
apply for, accept, and expend a $890,000 entitlement under the 
Emergency Shelter Grants Program from the Federal 
Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

$890,000 

Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 

July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001 

The HUD Emergency Shelter Grants Program was first 
established under the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance 
Act in July of 1987. The program is designed to assist in (a) 
improving the quality of existing emergency shelters for the 
homeless, (b) making available additional emergency shelters, 
and (c) meeting the costs of operating emergency shelters. The 
goal of the program is to provide certain essential social services 
to homeless individuals so that those persons have access to the 
support services needed to improve their situations. 

The Mayor's Office of Community Development (MOCD) is 
responsible for administering and monitoring the Emergency 
Shelter Grants Program (ESGP). Funds from the ESGP are 
budgeted under five categories, three program categories 
(Essential and Social Services, Maintenance and Operating 
Expenses, and Homeless Prevention Services) and two other 
categories (MOCD Administration and an Emergency Shelter 
Grants Pool). MOCD proposes to allocate grant funds in the 
amount of $890,000 from the FY 2000-2001 ESGP grant (which is 
$1,000 less than the 1999 ESGP allocation of $891,000) to 14 
projects in the three program categories noted above, to 
administrative costs, and to the Emergency Shelter Grants Pool. 

Approval of the proposed resolution would (a) authorize the 
MOCD to accept and expend the FY 2000-2001 Emergency 
Shelter Grant and (b) approve the FY 2000-2001 Emergency 
Shelter Grants Program and expenditure schedule. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Budget: 



The proposed summary budget for the ESGP allocation of 
$890,000 is as follows: 









Increase/ 






Proposed 


(Decrease) 




FY 1999- 


FY 2000- 


from FY 


Program 


2000 


2001 


1999-2000 




Budget 


Budget 


Budget 


American Red Cross 


$68,000 


$68,000 


$ 


Asian Women's Shelter 


56,000 


56,000 


- 


Catholic Charities 


25,000 


25,000 


- 


Compass Community Services 


50,000 


50,000 


- 


Dolores Street Community Services 


11,000 


48,000 


7,000 


Episcopal Community Services 


40,000 


40,000 


- 


Friendship House Association 


36,900 


36,900 


- 


Hamilton Family Center, Inc. 


43,000 


50,000 


7,000 


La Casa de las Madres 


77,300 


77,300 


- 


Larkin Street Youth Center 


54,000 


54,000 


- 


Metropolitan Community Foundation 





17.000 


17.000 


St. Vincent de Paul Society 


20,000 


20,000 


- 


Swords to Plowshares 


38,600 


38,600 


- 


United Council of Human Services 


96,000 


96,000 


- 


Emergency Shelter Pool 


120,350 


138,700 


18,350 


MOCD Administration (5%) 


14,500 


44,500 


- 


Programs Not Funded in FY 2000-2001 


80.350 


. 


(80.350) 


Total 


$891,000 


$890,000 


($1,000) 



The Attachment, provided by MOCD, contains the ESGP FY" 
1999-2000 budget and FY 2000-2001 proposed budget, and a list, 
including descriptions, of the above programs. Of the programs 
noted above, one program is new and 3 have increased funding 
from the FY* 1999-2000 ESGP budget, for a total of increased 
funding of $79,350. Additionally, programs funded in FY 1999- 
2000, totaling $80,350. were not funded in FY 2000-2001. The 
total ESGP allocation in FY' 2000-2001 of $890,000 is $1,000 less 
than the FY 1999-2000 allocation of $891,000. 

The Budget Analyst has reviewed budgets for four programs with 
increased funding. (Hamilton Family Center, Dolores Street 
Community Services, the Metropolitan Community Foundation, 
and the Emergency Shelter Pool). These programs are discussed 
below. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Hamilton Family Center, Inc. $50,000 

The proposed budget of $50,000 for Hamilton Family Center, Inc. 
is $7,000 or 16.3 percent more than the FY 1999-2000 allocation 
of $43,000. According to Mr. Jon Pon, the proposed allocation 
would be used for rent at 1525 Waller Street. Mr. Pon states that 
the rent paid by Hamilton Family Center at 1525 Waller Street 
is currently $74,784 annually (9,750 square feet at $0.64 per 
square foot per month), and that, on July 1, 2000, the rent will 
increase to $80,772, an annual rent increase of $5,988 or 8 
percent 

Dolores Street Community Services $48,000 

According to Mr. Pon, $48,000 has been allocated to Dolores 
Street Community Services in FY 2000-2001, which is $7,000, or 
17 percent, more than the FY 1999-2000 allocation of $41,000. 
Mr. Pon states that increased funds in the amount of $7,000 
would be used to partially fund the program director and case 
manager positions in the employment advocacy program for 
Latino working homeless. 1 

Metropolitan Community Foundation $47,000 

The Board of Supervisors approved allocation of $23,416 of 
Emergency Shelter Pool funds in December of 1999 for the 
Metropolitan Community Foundation's - Mission High Shower 
Project for homeless persons (File 99-2144). In FY 2000-2001, 
MOCD recommends an allocation of $47,000 to the Metropolitan 
Community Foundation for the continuation and expansion of 
Mission High School Shower Project. The Mission High School 
Shower Project is funded by private and non-City donations and 
grants, as well as the subject $47,000 in ESGP monies, for a total 
budget of $199,728. The Budget Analyst has reviewed details for 
the proposed budget and finds them to be reasonable. 

Emergency Shelter Pool $138,700 

MOCD has proposed allocating $138,700 in ESGP funds to the 
Emergency Shelter Pool in FY 2000-2001, which is $18,350 or 15 
percent more than the $120,350 allocated in FY 1999-2000. Mr. 
Pon states that the increased funds are necessary because the 



1 The Dolores Street Community Services program's proposed FY 2000-2001 budget has budgeted 
for 1.0 FTE Case Manager at $30,000 annually and 1.0 FTE Program Director at $37,000 annually. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

29 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 






Required Match: 



Indirect Costs: 



Comments: 



Recommendations: 



City anticipates a reduction in other Stewart B. McKinney 
Homeless Assistance Act funds in FY 2000-2001 compared to FY 
1999-2000. 2 The increased funds in the Emergency Shelter Pool 
would be used to provide emergency homeless shelter services in 
the winter of 2000-2001. The Budget Analyst recommends 
placing Emergency Shelter Pool funds in the amount of $138,700 
on reserve, pending submission of a program plan and budget. 

HUD requires one-to-one matching funds, totaling $890,000, for 
the ESGP funds. According to Ms. Julie Brenman of DHS, such 
matching funds have been budgeted in the proposed FY 2000- 
2001 DHS budget. 

None provided by the ESGP grant. 

1 As noted above, the subject ESGP grant would allocate funds 
to (a) 14 nonprofit agencies, (b) to administrative costs and (c) to 
the Emergency Shelter Pool. The Budget Analyst recommends 
approval of existing programs with the *;ime funding level as the 
prior year. Approval of programs with increased funding is a 
policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. Additionally, the 
Budget Analyst recommends placing S 138.700 allocated to the 
Emergency Shelter Pool on reserve, pending submission of a 
program plan and budget details. 

2. The MOCD has prepared a Disability Access Checklist, which 
is on file with the Clerk of the Board. 

1. Approve funding in the amount of $690,300 ($890,000 less new 
or increased funding of $61,000, less S138.700 to be placed on 
reserve). 

2. Place $138,700 for the Emergency Shelter Pool on reserve, as 
noted in Comment No. 1. 

3. Approval of funding in the amount of $61,000 for expanded 
programs including a $7,000 increase for Dolores Street 
Community Services, a $7,000 increase for Hamilton Family 
Center and $47,000 for the Metropolitan Community Foundation 
to expand the Mission High School shower project is a policy 
matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



1 According to Ms. Julie Brenman of the Department of Human Services (DHS). HUD awarded 
$9,000,000 to DHS in Federal McKinney funds in FY 1999-2000. Ms. Brenman states in FY' 2000- 
2001, DHS expects to receive S6. 900. 000 in McKinney funds, a S2. 100.000 decrease from FY* 1999- 
2000. Such funds are used to provide supportive and transitional housing and social services to 
homeless San Franciscans. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 






30 



Mayors Office of Community Development and Mayor's Office of Housing 
Expenditure Schedule 2000 CDBG, ESG and HOME Page 1 of 1 4/5/00 12:43 PM 



Attachment 
Page 1 of 3 



Agency FY99 FY00 RQ FY00 Rec | Chanee 


Ernergeecy Shelter Grant : 


Amencan Red Cross Bav Area. SF 


68,000 


58. '."!i. 


68,000 





Asian Women's Shelter 


56.000 


56.0110 


56.000 





Catholic Chanties /St. Joseph's Village 


25.000 


25.750 


25.000 





Compass Community Services 


50,000 


50,000 


50,000 





Dolores St Community Services/So Van Ness Loc 


41.000 


4S.000 


48.000 


7.000 


Emergency Shelter Pool 


120,350 




138.700 


18.350 


Episcopal Community Services of SF 


40,000 


45,000 


40,000 





Friendship House Association of Amencan Indians. Inc. 


36.900 


63.950 


36.900 





Hamilton Family Center. Inc 


43,001) 


50,000 


50,000 


7,000 


La Casa de las Madres 


77.300 


110.000 


77.300 





Larkm Street Youth Center 


54.000 


65,000 


54,000 





Metropolitan Community Foundation 





76JOO 


47,000 


47,000 


MOCD(5%Admin) 


44.550 


44.772 


44.500 


-50 


St Vincent DePaul Society 


20.000 


30,000 


20.000 





Swords to Plowshares 


38,600 


46,764 


38.600 





United Council of Human Services (The) 


96.000 


276.000 


96.000 





Central City Hospitality House 


1 0.300 


21,700 





-10,300 


Volunteer Legal Services Program/ SF Bar Assn 


60.000 


80.000 





-60.000 


Asian Law Caucus 





30.600 








Booker T Washington Community Service Center 


[) 


50,000 


1) 





Metropolitan Community Foundation 





119.728 








Tides Center/SF Eviction Defense Collaborative 





30,600 








Central Citv HosDitalitv House (Orlando) 


10,000 







-10.000 


Salvation Army (Lifeboat Lodge) 























TOTAL EMERGENCY SHELTER 


89 1 ,000 


1.408.564 


890.000 


-1. 000 













r»»nu»onpn „i,- 



31 



Emergency Shelter Grant Program 



Attachment 
Fage 2 of 3 



Activity Name and Location 



Program Description 



Proposed Budget 



Emergency Shelter Grants 

These projects are directed specifically towards servces extended towards homeless individual and families. 



1 . American Red Cross (Bay Area) 
85 2nd Street 



Provide back rent grants to eligible single non- 
disabled adults to prevent eviction 



S68.000 



2 . Asian Women's Shelter 
(Confidential) 



Provide shelter and support services to battered 
women and their children 



S56.000 



3. Catholic Chanties 

814 Mission Street, Mezzanine 



Provide security deposits and other assistance 
to those in danger of eviction. 



S25.000 



4 . Compass Community Services 
1 1 1 Tavlor Street 



Provide emergency shelter to homeless families S50.000 



5 . Dolores Street Community Services 
938 Valencia Street 



Provide employment development services to 
homeless immieram latino men 



S4S.000 



6. Episcopal Community Services of Sr 
201 8th Street 



Provide shelter services, comprehensive case 
management and on-site job counseling 



S40.000 



7. Friendship House Association of American Indians Provide shelter to homeless American Indian 
80 Julian Avenue adul15 s e; * in ? treatment and counseling for 

alcohol/subsianc; aBtrse addictions 



S36.900 



S. Hamilton Family Center. Inc 
1525 Waller Street 



Provide emergency shelter :o homeless fan: S50.000 



32 



Section CI 



Attachment 
Page 3 of 3 



Emergency Shelter Grant Program 



Acttvitv Name and Location 



Program Description 



Proposed Budget 



9 . La Casa de las Madres 
(Confidential) 



Provide shelter and 24-hour bilingual crisis 
line, drop-in program, and counseling services 
to bartered women and their children 



S77.300 



10. Larkin Street Youth Center 
538 Central Avenue 



Provide emergency shelter and related services S54.000 

to runaway vouth aaes 12-17 



1 1 . Metropolitan Community Foundation 
3750 18th Street 



Provide showers and personal hygiene services 
as pan of Mission High School Shower Project 
to the homeless 



S47.000 



12. St. Vincent de Paul Society of SF 
(Confidential) 



Provide emergency shelter for battered women 
and their children 



S20.000 



1 3 . Swords to Plowshares 
1063 Market Street 



Provide case management assistance to 
homeless and at-risk veterans to access and 
protect disability income and medical benefits 



S38.600 



14. United Council of Human Services 
2111 Jennings Street 



Provide services to homeless or at-risk of 
becoming homeless, including pantry proeram, 
food bag program, hot meal program, clothing 
bank, life skills training, crisis counseling and 
coordinated referrals 



S96.000 



Emergency Shelter Pool 
c.o MOCD 



Provide emergency funding for homeless 
projects throughout the year 



5133.^00 



16. MOCD/ESG Administration 
c/o MOCD 



Administration of ESG Program 



S44.500 



GRAND TOTAL EMERGENCY SHELTER PROGRAM S890.000 



Section C2 



33 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 5 - File 00-0487 
Department: 
Item: 



Mayor's Office of Housing (MOH) 

Resolution (a) authorizing the Mayor to apply for, accept 
and administer a grant from the U.S. Department of 
Housing and Urban Development for a total amount not to 
exceed $7,] 1.5,000 for the Home Program authorized under 
Title II of the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990, 
Public Law Number 101-625, and (b) approving the Home 
Program description, as described m the 2000 Action Plan 
for San Francisco's Consolidated Plan. This resolution 
states that indirect costs associated with the acceptance of 
these grant funds will be paid by Community Development 
Block Grant funds. 



Amount: 
Grant Period: 
Source of Funds: 

Project: 
Description: 



Not to exceed $7,115,000 

July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001 

Department of Housing and Urban Development 
(HUD) 

Home Investment Partnership (HOME) Program 

The HOME Program is authorized under Title II of the 
National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 (Public Law 
Number 101-625). The Act provides fund? for the 
acquisition, rehabilitation, and development of privately- 
owned affordable housing. 

In August of 1994, HUD issued regulations requiring that a 
Consolidated Plan be developed for (a) the HOME ProgTam, 
(b) the Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS 
(HOPWA) Program, and (c) the Community Development 
Block Grant (CDBG) Program. In response. MOH has 
developed a "Preliminary 2000 Action Plan for the City and 
Countv of San Francisco. Draft for Public Review" 1 . The 



1 The "Preliminary 2000 Action Plan for the City and County of San Francisco. Draft for Public 
Renew", dated March 30, 2000. contains the City's plans and programs for privately-owned housing, 
totaling $82,388,311. as shown on the following page. The final 2000 Action Plan will reflect the 
program funding requests approved by the Board of Supervisors in this subject HOME Program 
legislation, and legislation being considered by the Finance and Labor Committee (Files 00-0486 and 
00-0488). 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

34 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



MOH advises that the Preliminary 2000 Action Plan, when 
finalized to reflect the program funding to be approved by 
the Board of Supervisors for the three programs noted 
above, will function as the MOH grant application for 
HOME program funding from HUD. MOH and the Mayor's 
Office of Community Development (MOCD) must submit 
the 2000 Action Plan to HUD by May 15, 2000. According 
to the Preliminary 2000 Action Plan for privately owned 
housing development and administrative costs, the MOH 
anticipates receiving $7,115,000, which is $38,000 or 0.5 
percent more than the 1999 allocation of $7,077,000. 

Projected funds for the Preliminary 2000 Action Plan for 
privately owned housing developments in San Francisco 
totals $ 82,294,835, including $6,197,376 of the proposed 
$7,115,000 HOME grant allocation 2 and various other 
sources of funding, as follows: 



Funding Source 


Amount 


Federal Funds 






HOME 


$6,197,376 




CDBG 3 


5,406,501 




CDBG Program Income 


240,000 




HOPWA 


185.508 




Subtotal, Federal Funds 




$12,029,385 


Local Sources 






Hotel Tax Fund 


4,900,000 




Citywide Tax Increment (T.I.) 


19,275,000 




SOMA T.I. 


10,000,000 




Western Addition T.I. 


12,275,000 




Mission Bav 


4,000,000 




Bonds: Development Account 


16,842,750 




Bonds: Down-payment 






Assistance Account 


2,969.700 




Subtotal, Local Funds 




$70,262,450 


Total 




$82,291,835 



2 The funding sources noted above are for capital projects only. Of the proposed HOME grant, 
totaling $7,115,000, $6,197,376 is designated for capital projects (including acquisition and 
rehabilitation and new housing construction), $56,474 is designated for tenant rental assistance, and 
$861,150 is designated for HOME administrative costs. 

3 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds are the subject of File 00-0488. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

35 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

REVISED 4/7/00 
Item 5 - File 00-0487 



The proposed total 2000 HOME Program funds of 
$7,115,000 represents approximately 8.6 percent of the 
total $ 82,291,835 in projected funds for privately owned 
housing development in San Francisco. 

Procedures for allocating HOME Program funds were 
approved by the Board of Supervisors in August of 1992 
(File 68-92-4.1) and revised in February of 1994 (File 68-94- 
7). These procedures outlined broad criteria and the 
process for allocating the HOME Program funds, including 
notification procedures to interested parties on the 
availability of housing funds, evaluation of funding 
proposals, and criteria for underwriting housing loans. 
Projects eligible for HOME funding are defined as follows: 

instruction of new housing units or rehabilitation of 
existing housing units, which will be owned and 
managed by the applicant for HOME funding, and 
which will be occupied by households with incomes that 
do not exceed 60 percent of the median income 
established by HUD; or 

(b) First-time home ownership assistance for low-income 
persons with household incomes that do not exceed 80 
percent of the median income established by HUD. 

H( >ME regulations require that a minimum of 15 percent of 
the City's proposed FY 2000-2001 HOME allocation of 
$7,115,000, or $1,067,250, be reserved for housing 
developed, sponsored or owned by non-profit Community 
Housing Development Organizations (CHDO). According 
to Mr. Joe LaTorre of MOH, nearly all of San Francisco's 
affordable housing development efforts in recent years have 
been conducted in collaboration with local community- 
based non-profit housing development corporations, several 
of which have satisfied HUD requirements to qualify - as 
CHDOs. CHDOs are expected to continue performing the 
roles that non-profit housing development corporations 
have traditionally performed in San Francisco, including 
acquisition and rehabilitation of existing buildings, 
acquisition of sites and development of new housing, and 
ownership and management of subsidized developments 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Budget: 



The proposed summary budget for the subject HOME 
Investment Partnership Program grant is as follows: 



Increase/ 
FY 1999-2000 FY 2000-2001 (Decrease) in 
Program Budget Budget FY 2000-2001 


Acquisition and rehabilitation of 
housing units for low-income 
households 

• Per unit cost greater than $25,000 

• Per unit cost less than $25,000 
Subtotal, Acquisition/ Rehabilitation 


$2,897,288 

1.500.000 

$4,397,288 


$2,339,249 

1.500.000 

$3,839,249 


($558,039) 



($558,039) 


New housing construction 


$1,824,109 


$2,358,127 


$534,018 


Tenant-based housing assistance 


$36,474 


$56,474 


S20,000 


Administrative Costs 

Community Housing Corporation 
MOH HOME Program 
Other administrative costs 

Subtotal, AdministrativeCosts 


150.000 

488,134 

182.995 

$821,129 


150,000 
557,571 
153.579 

$861,150 




69,437 

(29.416) 

$40,021 


Total 


$7,079,000 


$7,115,000 


$36,000 



Required Match: 



Comments: 



$1,778,750 or 25 percent of HOME grant funds. Mr. 
LaTorre states that matching funds are available from the 
Home Tax Fund, identified as a local funding source on the 
previous page. Such matching funds would be part of the 
total funding of $82,291,835 for privately owned housing 
developments, identified by the Preliminarj' 2000 Action 
Plan for the City and County of San Francisco. 

1. According to Mr. LaTorre, MOH will issue "Notices of 
Funding Availability" to nonprofit developers for (a) 
development of supportive housing 4 units ($2,339,249), and 
(b) preservation of existing nonprofit-owned housing 
($1,500,000). Additionally, $2,358,127 will be allocated to 
Bridge Housing Corporation, a nonprofit developer, for an 
existing project to construct new family rental housing at 1 
Church Street. This total funding of $6,197,376 represents 
87.1 percent of the $7,115,000 in HOME funding. 



Supportive housing provides necessary social services as well as housing to low-income residents. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

37 



Memo to Finance and Labor Commit- 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

2. Mr. La Torre states that tenant-based housing assistance 
is provided by Catholic Charities Homeless Prevention 
Program to assist low-income tenants in avoiding eviction. 

3. As shown in the table abov>\ total administrative com- in 
the proposed FY 2000-2001 HOME Investment Partnership 
Program are $861,150, which is $40,021 or 4.9 percent 
more than total administrative costs in the FY" 1999-2000 
budget of $821,129 ($150,000 plus $488. 134 plus $182,995). 
The FY 2000-2001 MOH HOME program administration 
costs of $557,571 are $69,437 or 14.2 percent more than the 
FY 1999-2000 allocation of $488,134. According to Mr. 
Roger Sanders of NfOCD, the increased HOME program 
administration costs are due to increased salary costs for 
the existing 5.05 program FTES. including negotiated 
salary increases, salary step increases, and the associated 
increase in fringe benefits. The Attachment, provided by 
Mr. Sanders, contains the budget details for the proposed 
FY 2000-2001 HOME administrative budget. The Budget 
Analyst has reviewed the FY 1999-2000 and FY 2000-2001 
HOME administrative bud§ 

4. Mr. LaTorre states that $150,000 in administrative costs 
would be allocated to the Community Housing Corporation, 
which is unchanged from the amount allocated in FY 1999- 
2000. Of the $150,000. the Chinese Community Housing 
Corporation. the Mission Housing Development 
Corporation. and the Tenderloin Neighborhood 
Development Corporation would each be allocated S50.000. 

5. Section l.C of MOH Criteria and Procedures for 
allocating HOME Program funds requires that the Director 
of MOH submit an Annual Report to the Board of 
Supervisors by March 31 of each year for the preceding 
calendar year, providing an accounting of all HOME 
program funds received by the City and how the funds were 
expended. According to Mr. LaTorre. the most recent 
Annual Report, for calendar year 1999. is in final editing 
and will be submitted to the Board of Supervisors by April 
7. 2000. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for 
the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

38 



Attachment 



Mayor's Office of Housing HOME Administrative Expenditure Schedule 2000 



Psm 


Grant 


Mat 


Hi 


Line Item 


Description 


St 


Sub-Obj 


Admin 




MOHM00 


21H 




Class 


Title 




FTE 






MOHM00 


21H 


\ 


1367 


Special Assistant \T1I 


Alv.'Arin 


20 


S 9.892 




MOHM00 


21H 




1369 


Special .Assistant X 




250 


S 144.430 




MOHM00 


21H 




1370 


Special Assistant XI 




0.50 


S 28.071 




MOHM00 


21H 




1371 


Special Assistant XIV 




050 


S 31.711 




MOHM00 


21H 




1374 


Special Assistant XII 




0.50 


S 43.117 




MOHM00 


21H 




1377 


Special Assistant Program Development 


0.10 


S 10.489 




MOHM00 


21H 




9774 


Sr Community Development Specialist 




0.75 


S 48.507 






















MOHMOO 


21H 




Personnel 


Labor Costs 




5 05 


S 516.217 




MOHMOO 


21H 




Personnel 


Labor Costs Fnnees a 11 






S 69.568 




MOHMOO 


21H 




Personnel 


Labor Costs Total 






S 385.785 




MOHMOO 


2IH 




Personel 


SaJarv Savings 2.05 






S (19.2891 






21H 




Personel 


Negotiated Increases 'a .04 






S 15.431 






















MOHMOO 


21H 




Conferences &. Travel 


Conference Travel 






S 




MOHMOO 


21H 




Dravaae-Treight 


File Safe 






S 500 




MOHMOO 


2IH 




Equipment 


Lease Photocopier 






S 5.000 




MOHMOO 


21H 




Equipment 


Maintenance & Repair 






s 




MOHMOO 


21H 




Equipment 


Auto Fuel & Maintenance 






s 




MOHMOO 


21H 




Legal & Displa\ Advertising 








S : 




MOHMOO 


21H 




Memberships 








S 1.500 




MOHMOO 


21H 




Postage 








S 2.500 




MOHMOO 


2IH 




Pnntins 








S 5.000 




M' 1HM0O 


21H 




Rental Space 


25 Van Ness Lease 






S "0.644 




MOHMOO 


21H 




Supplies 


Office Supplies 






S 5.000 




MOHMOO 


21H 




Telecommunications 


Telephone Services 






S 5.000 




MOHMOO 


21H 




Training 








S 2.500 




MOHMOO 


21H 




TOTAL 








S 487,571 






















MOHMOO 


21H 




Professional Services 


Environmental Review 






S 15.000 




MOHMOO 


21H 




Professional Services 


Gt\ Planning 






S 10.000 




MOHMOO 


21H 




Professional Services 


Gtv Attorney 






S 25.000 




MOHM01 


21H 




Professional Services 


Controller 






S 10.000 




MOHMOO 


21H 




Professional Services 


Real Estate 










MOHMOO 


2IH 




Professional Services 


ADA 










Mi iHM'.if; 


21H 




Professional Services 


Other 






S 10.000 






















\]> iHMOfi 


2!H 




Total HOME 








S 55-.571 



MOH 2000 Budget Review 
39 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 6 -File 00-0488 



Department: 



Mayor's Office of Community Development 
(MOCD) 



Item: 



Resolution approving the 2000 Community 
Development Program authorizing the Mayor, on 
behalf of the City and County of San Francisco, to 
accept and expend the City's 2000 Community 
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Entitlement 
from the U.S. Department of Housing and Lilian 
Development, and program income generated by 
the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency up to 
$33,734,275 which include indirect costs of 
$160,000; and approving expenditure schedul 
recipient departments and agencies for in d 



Description: 



in the Budget Analv rate report of 

April 12, 2000 on the Mayor's proposed 2000 
Community Development Program. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

40 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 7 - File 00-0521 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Description: 



Port 



Hearing requesting the release of reserves in the amount 
of $235,343 to fund the completion of the Hyde Street 
Fishing Harbor Project. 



$235,343 

California Department of Boating and 
(CDBW), in the form of loan proceeds 



Waterways 



In 1988, the Port began a project to revitalize commercial 
fishing at Fisherman's Wharf. This project included, 
among other projects, the Hyde Street Fishing Harbor 
Project, which consisted of a waterside vessel berthing 
facility and associated improvements to nearby land 

In May of 1988 the Board of Supervisors approved a 
request by the Port to apply for and accept loan funds in 
the amount of $3,000,000 from the California Department 
of Boating and Waterways (CDBW) to fund the Hyde 
Street Fishing Harbor Project (Resolution 374-88). In 
April of 1994 the Board of Supervisors approved a 
resolution to increase the amount of the loan by $500,000, 
to a total loan amount of $3,500,000 (Resolution 350-94). 

In January of 1998, the Board of Supervisors 
appropriated the $3,500,000 in loan proceeds for the 
Phase 1 Hyde Street Fishing Harbor Project. Of the 
$3,500,000 amount appropriated, $3,229,700 was placed 
on reserve, pending confirmation of contractor selection 
and submission of budget details (Ordinance No. 40-98). 

Since the initial placement of the $3,229,700 on reserve, 
the Finance and Labor Committee has approved release of 
funds for the project three times: for design costs, 
dredging and disposal work, and for Phase 1 demolition 
and construction work, respectively (for further details, 
see Comment No. 1). Thus far, total reserve funds of 
$2,994,357 have been released by the Finance Committee, 
leaving a balance of $235,343 remaining on reserve. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

41 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



In addition to the remaining $235,343 on reserve for the 
Hyde Street Fishing Harbor Project, the Port has also 
appropriated an additional $2,075,228 for Phase 2 of the 
project. The other sources of funding for Phase 2 of the 
project are CDBW grant funds (approved by the Board of 
Supervisors in FY 1998-99 - Resolution 552-98) in the 
amount of $86,500 and Port Capital Budget funds 
approved in the FY 1998-99 Port budget in the amount of 
$1,988,728 (for a total of $2,075,228). 

The Port now requests that the $235,343 balance in 
CDBW loan funds remaining on reserve for the Hyde 
Street Pishing Harbor Project be released as additional 
funding for Phase 2. If this request is approved, total 
funds appropriated for Phase 2 would be $2,310." 71 
($2,075,228 in previously appropriated funds for Phase 2 
of the projeel plus the $235,343 remaining reserved funds 
from Phase 1 of the project). Specifically, Phase 2 of the 
Projeel would include construction of new utilities along 
Hyde Alley, partial demolition of the 490 Jefferson St. 
building to accommodate a new 24 car parking lot, a i 
parking Lot at the North end of Hyde Alley to 
accommodate 21 parking stalls, new bathrooms and a 
utility and storage facility located within the existing blue 
shed building on Hyde Alley, and public and disability 
access from Jefferson Street to the public access area at 
the North end of Hvde Alley. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

42 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Budget: 



A summary budget for the proposed Phase 2 of the Hyde 
Street Fishing Harbor project is as follows: 



Hyde Street Fishing Harbor Project 




Demolition/Asbestos removal & disposal 


$188,419 


Paving parking lots and pedestrian areas 


150,000 


Storm drain work 


250,000 


Gas and electrical service 


265,000 


Fuel pier bilge pump-out and lines 


100,000 


Jefferson St. building & loading dock, 




Extend existing wood pier 


200,000 


Concrete 


400,000 


Aluminum railing, chain link fence, and 


70,000 


Gate structure 




Signage 


70,000 


Trench shoring to provide safety and temporary 




Support 


5,000 


Restroom, utility rooms, and storage facility 


200,000 


Pilings 


135,100 


Parking area A/Lot B 


67,000 


Total Bid Price 


$2,100,519 


10% contingency reserve 


210.052 


Total Project Budget* 


$2,310,571 



* See comment No. 4. 



Comments: 



1. The table on the following page is a summary of prior 
actions by the Board of Supervisors on the $3.5 million in 
CDBW loans previously appropriated to the Port in 
January of 1998 for the Hyde Street Fishing Harbor 
Project, including the proposed release of $235,343 in 
reserved funds: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

A3 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



January 1998 



July 1998 



October 1999 



February 2000 



April 2000 



$3,500,000 in Funds Appropriated, 
with $3,229,700 Placed on Reserve 

Release of Reserved Funds 
For Design Costs 

Release of Reserved Funds 

For Pre-Construction Dredging 

and Disposal Work 

Release of Reserved Funds for 
Demolition and Construction 
Work (Phase 1) 

Proposed Su bjcct Release of 
Reseries (Phase 2) 

Balance of Funds that iron Id 
Remain on Reserrr 



$3,229,700 
(132,857) 

(260,000) 

(2,601,500) 

(235.343) 

$0 



2. Ms. Veronica Sanchez of the Port anticipates that 
construction of the final stage of the Hyde Street Fishing 
Harbor Project will commence April 17, 2000 and be 
completed by October 3, 2000. 

3. According to Ms. Sanchez, after a competitive selection 
process, the Port awarded a construction contract to Proven 
Management, Inc., who submitted the lowest responsible 
bid of $2,100,519 for the Phase 2 Project, on March 14, 
2000. Attachment I to this report, provided by the Port, 
contains a list of all firms that submitted bids for this 
project and the amount of each bid. The lowest bidder, 
Darcy & Harty Construction, submitted a bid of $1,992,500, 
which was $108,019 less than the bid by Proven 
Management, Inc. However, Ms. Imani Haygood of the Port 
reports that, although Darcy & Harty Construction (a 
certified LBE contractor) had the lowest total bid. after 
MBEAVBE/LBE bid discounts were applied. Proven 
Management. Inc. was the lowest bidder. Darcy & Harty 
Construction received a 5% bid discount for their LBE 
status, whereas Proven Management received a 10% bid 
discount on their total bid for their MBE (5%) and LBE 
(5%) status. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

44 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

4. The total Phase 2 budget cost of $2,310,571 is $210,052 
more than Proven Management's bid of $2,100,519 because 
an additional 10 percent would be held as a contingency 
reserve. 

5. Repayments on the $3.5 million loan proceeds provided 
by the California Department of Boating and Waterways, 
are to commence on August 1, 2000. According to Ms. 
Sanchez, the Port will repay the $3,500,000 CDBW loan 
over a period 28 years at an annual interest rate of 4.5 
percent. Loan payments will total $222,322.82 per year, 
and the Port's payments will ultimately total $6,303,789! 
as identified in Attachment II provided by the Port. 
Attachment III, provided by the Port, lists all funding 
sources the Port plans to use to pay the $3.5 million loan. 

6. The Port Commission approved an Environmental 
Impact Report (EIR) for the project in December of 1996. 

Recommendation: Approve the requested release of reserved funds. 



1 This total includes 28 annual payments of $222,322.82 plus a one time post-construction interest 
payment of $78,750. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

45 



Attachment I 
Page 1 ot 2 



c o o 

ra <" o o 

2 O ^ K) 



en 

UJ 
DC 

> 
CO 



CO 

a 



m 


2 


a 


•a 








■LI 


c. 
O 


ex 


a 


o co 

"5 2 


c_ 


u 


a m 



»sH 



u 5 u T> 

6> — <1> O 

2 o 2" o" 




T3 
la 



■ 


























- 1 5 




2, 5 






c ■= 3 




c < 


«- o 












5 = = 










t/, p 


c *- = 
























> = a 






-* » 5 




If 


• a | 

-2 S o 




O C 


C - C8 

. = c 




> 


c o 




c 




2 § 1- 

— 1 TJ > 




: s 


5 






-r 






03 






—i 



C c D 
£ -= ° 



32? 

c c "2 
-S £ 
u — 

■ is o ■ . 
If £ i 

O — o ^ 

e o 2 — 

? II 



If 






Ifl 



46 



O o3 o3 



rr "5 2 
CD : ■ . . 

CD „ »- 



— ° — _ 



o 
o 

X 

5 

> 

US 

= uT 

_l CO 


o 
o 
d 

Cm" 

en 

tO 


o 
o 
d 
en 
o 

tO 



c 
d 

CD 

■c 


CM 
» 



q 
d 

ID 
CM 

d 

a 





d 

CD 
CM 


O 
q 
d 

CM 

T 
CD" 
CM 


c 
c 

Q 

L0 

UT 

O 
CO 

if? 


c 
a 

q 
en 



c 
d 


UT 




q 


■<r 
co_ 

0" 


in 
cm" 

to 





d 
in 

P3 

^r 
m 
to 




q 
d 

o_ 
■c 

CD 

m 
cm" 
to 


O 
q 
d 


o_ 

CD 

in 

cm" 
to 


u 
c 

CI 

c 
a 
5 

c < 

§ o 

2 u: 

Q. CO 


o 
o 
d 
o 
o 
o" 
o 

to 


O 

o 
d 
o 
q 
o" 
o 

CNJ 
tO . 


O 
O 

d 







» 



c 
d 


d 


O 
O 

d 




o~ 

r^ 


O 

q 

d 

o_ 
in' 

if) 



c 

c 
c 

d 



CM 

« 




d 


in 

CM 
W 







d 



q 
d 

d 
o_ 
cm" 
to 




d 




CO 



c 
d 
m 
0" 


CJ 

to 




N-' 
CD 

O" 

o> 

Cj 

to 


O 

m < 

js O 

a 

cu u. 
a. en 


o 
o 
d 
o 
o 
o" 

CD 
CM 

to 


a 
o 
d 
o 
o_ 
o" 
m 

CM 

to 



q 
d 


in 
r-~ 

«» 




d 





in 
to 



q 
d 


0" 

CD 


O 
O 

d 

q 
cm" 
to 


c 



c 
d 


rg 


O 
O 

c 
a 

0" 

CO 




d 


q 

tfl 



q 

d 


r--_ 

ID 

cm" 

to 




d 


0" 


to 




d 


in 
■<» 

cj" 
to 




d 

CD 

■c 

cm" 
to 


ui 

c 
o 
o 

>. 

a 

l< 
2 ° 

Q CO 


o 
o 
d 
o 
o 
o" 

CD 

CNJ 
tO 


o 

o 
d 
o 
o 
d 

ID 








0" 


CM 
tO 




d 


d 
w 
to 




d 


0" 



q 
d • 
• 

d 


O 
c 

D 

O 

c 
in 

CJ 




d 

G 
CJ 

tfr 



q 
d 



CO 

fa>7 




d 

m 
r--" 

CM 

a> 

to 




d 


in 

CD 

to 


O 

O 
O- 
.0 

cJ 

CD 
CD 

W 



q 

d 
r-- 

CD 

cm" 

en 
q 

to 


5 
c 

Q) 

o 

"> 

UJ 

|3 

O CO 


o 

CM 

d 
r-~-" 

T 
CD 
tO 


o 
o 
d 

o 
o 
d 

CM 
tO 


O 
O 

d 

CM 

to 




d 



d 




q 
d 

CD 

in 

d 


fc9 


D 

q 


q 

*9 




6 
c 

cd 

CM 

a 


O 

q 
d 
co 

d 







m 


CD 

q 

d 

CM 

CM 

■to 


O 

q 
in 

to 




CD 
CO 

cc 

-0 

m" 
to 


CM 
CO 

in 

d 

CO 

o_ 
cm" 
to 


2 
O 

h- 
Q. 

DC 

o 

(J) 
LU 
Q 


C. 

ts ill g 
If III I 

<n' Q = "T ? =■ 

i D ? C J= </> 

"O ^ • E f 
C _ = 3 O C " 

— s •- •£. o 

g ° ^ B 5 

il8=°«l 

1 |lo£ 2 s 

2 P c = . *- «> 

°- § ■ c. 5 « c. 

^ a - 2 m 3 _ 
i; — ■ <» 3 <n a 

- a _ a ~ c a 

3 o S m - ? 2 
u_ 2b <« tx o = en 


"3 

o 

o . 

s . g 

JC = 

(j ca 
o - 

a o 
15 

a 
_o a 

1 s 

a m 
a <n 
z. ai 

3 C3 « 

•° a = 

S = -5 

a .a 

"5 m 

-j C CD 





II 

• 

5 w 




| 1 
5 

O .X 

. 

JX ~ 
B t- 
$ • en 

• O = 

■a ■ 

- £* 

O £ O 

a 

1 < 1 



CJ < 


a 

-0 

c 
c 

u 
^5 

5 

1 5 

C 3 
C 

5 2 
< « 


■c 

re 

~c 

0. 
c 

■o 

3 
u 


a 

c 
a 

? 

C 

= c 

§ 
CO CO 


>. 


a 
"0 
| 



> 

5 
c 




a 

_c 

_ 
"S 

•5 

c ° 
S 

£ E 


>■ 

'6 
_c 

a 

a 

C 
= 

E 

8 

5 

E 
a 
a 



a 


■ 
a 

■ 

T1 
U. 




U 


B 
t_ 

a 
W 

5 

c 
S 

0; 


<n in 
c 

5 c 

2 _ 
-1 X 

— c 

< 

O 

t- 
■a 

c 

6 





c 

e 

E 
3 



a 

^5 


tr 


< 

cr 

E 
m 

"c 


H 
"0 
C 
c 

c5 


5 


a> 

a 

ca 
01 
_c 
_>. 

c 

Q. 
O 

c 

c 
a 



1- 

■c 
c 

c 

c5 


■a E 
5 2 


CO 

CO 

_J 


CO 

- 1 


1 °? 

CO 

_J 


C5 

CO 

_) 



CO 


1 = 
13 


CJ 

tn 

-J 


Cl 


CJ 

a. 

11 


< 





Attachment I 
Fage 2 ot 2 

U 



LU 

LU 

C3 
< 
2 
< 



LU 

> 

O 

cr 
c 



■JO 

In 
_o 

.Q 

"co 

C 
O 
CL 



o 



C3 

CD 
C3 



CT 
TO 

E 

E 

Z3 
CO 

■o 

In 



■n "O 
1 J 

ct C - 

< < 

~ c 
I o 

§^ 

o Q 



ca 



m 



47 



Attachment II 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 




DATE: 
TO: 
FROM: 
RE: 



/ 



February 16, 2000 

EmJIie Neumann, Budget Analyst's Office 

Veronica Sanchez, Port of San Francisco \/7"> 

Attachment 3 0> 

Release of Reserved Funds Hyde St. Harbor Waterside Improvements 



firry 6u«C«-jj 

S*i franooeo. C* 941" 

Ttiepnon* f.i 27* 0400 

F«i«1S2?ite28 



Cal Boating Loan Repayment Schedule 





Annual 












Start of 


Interest 


Scheduled 


Actual 


Scheduled 


Interest 


Principal 


Payment Period 


Rate 


Balance 


Balance 


Payment 


Portion 


Portion 


1 08/00 


4.50% 


3,500.000.00 


3,500,000.00 


(222,322.82) 


[1 57,500.00) 


(64,822.82) 


2 08/01 


4.50% 


3,435,177.18 


3,435.177.18 


(222,322.82) 


154,582.97) 


(67,739.84) 


3 08/02 


4.50% 


3,367,437.00 


3.367.437 00 


(222,322.82) 


151.534.68) 


(70,755.14) 


4 08/03 


4.50% 


3,296.64920 


3.296.64920 


(222,322.82) 


148.34921) 


r3.973 60) 


5 08/04 


4 50% 


3.222.675.60 


3.222,67560 


(222,32282) 


145,020 40) 


(77,302 04) 


6 08/05 


4.50% 


3.145,373.18 


3.145,373.18 


(222,322.82) 


141.541.79) 


(80.781.02) 


7 08/06 


4.50% 


3,064,592.16 


3,064,592.16 


(222,322.82) 


137,906.65) 


(84,416.17) 


8 08/07 


4.50% 


2,980,175.98 


2,980,175.98 


(222,322.82) 


134.107.92) 


(88,214.90) 


9 08/08 


4.50% 


2,891,961.09 


2.891.961 09 


(222.322.82) 


130.13625) 


(92,184.57) 


10 08/09 


4 50% 


2.799,776 52 


2,799.776 52 


(222,322.82) 


125,989.94) 


(96.332.87) 


11 08/10 


4.50% 


2.703,443.64 


2.703,443.64 


(222.322.82) 


121,654.96) 


(100.667.85) 


12 08/11 


4.50% 


2,602,775.79 


2,602.775.79 


(222,322.82) 


117,124.91) 


(105,197.91) 


13 08/12 


4.50% 


2,497,577.88 


2/97,577 88 


(222.322.82) 


112.391 00) 


(109,931 81) 


14 08/13 


4.50% 


2,387,64607 


2.387,646.07 


(222.322.82) 


107.444.07) 


(114.878.74) 


15 08/14 


4.50% 


2.272,767 32 


2,272,767.32 


(222,322 82) 


102,27453) 


(120,04829) 


16 08/15 


4.50% 


2.152.719 04 


2 152,719.04 


(222,322.82) 


(96,872.36) 


(125,450.53) 


17 08/16 


4 50% 


2.027,268.57 


2,027,268.57 


(222,322.82) 


-7.09) 


(131.095.73) 


18 08/17 


4.50% 


1.896,172.84 


1,896,172.84 


(222,322.82) 


(85.327.78) 


(136,995.04) 


19 08/18 


4.50% 


1,759,177.80 


1,759,177,80 


(222,322.32) 


(79,163.00) 


(143.159.82) 


20 08/19 


4.50% 


',,516,017.93 


1.616.017.99 


(222,322.82) 


(72,720.81) 


(149.602.01) 


21 08/20 


4 50% 


1.466.415.98 


1.466.415 96 


(222.322.82) 


(65.988.72) 


(156.334. 1C) 


22 08/21 


4.50% 


1 310,081 88 


1.310.081.88 


(222.322.82) 


(58,953.68) 


(163,369.13) 


23 08/22 


4.50% 


1,146,712.74 


1,146,712.74 


(222,322.82) 


(51,602.07) 


(170,720.74) 


24 08/23 


4.50% 


975,992.00 


975,992.00 


,222,322.82) 


(43,919.64) 


(178,403.18) 


25 08/24 


4.50% 


797,588.82 


797,588.82 


(222.322.82) 


(35,891.50) 


(186.431.32) 


26 08/25 


4.50% 


611.157 5C 


611.157.50 


(222.322.82) 


" 7 :-G2.09) 


(194,820.73) 


27 08/26 


4.50% 


416,335.77 


.36.77 


(222,322.82) 


(13,735.15) 


(203,587.66) 


28 08/27 


4.50% 


212,745 11 


2^2, "49 11 


(222,322.62) 


(9,5~ ~ 


(212.749. 11) 






TOTAL INTEREST FROM AMORTIZATION (2.725.038.88) 








Interest to August 1. 20G0 




(78.750.00) 








TOTAL INTEREST COSTS 


(2,803,788.88) 





Please refer to Attachment 1 (pages 3^) for an itemization of the expected Port revenues to be used over tne 
28 year loan term to repay the loan If you need further clarification, please contact Stephanie Downs, 
Finance Manager, at 274-0442. 
2/16/00 4:11 PM 



48 



Attachment III 
Page 1 of 2 



Page 3 of 4 

Budget Analyst's Office 

Fehruaiy 16,2000 

Release of Reserved Funds for Hyde St- Harbor Waterside Improvements 



Hyde Street Harbor 

First Year Revenne 



Monthly Commercial Berths 


86,400 


Transient Commercial Berths 


14,800 


Transient Recreational Berths 


49,700 


Side-Ties 


9,792 


Transient Fee - Pump-out 


6,300 


Metered Parking at Pier 


16,200 


Additional Fuel Wharfage 


15,000 


Telephone/Vending 


2.500 




S200.692 


Sixth Year Revenue 


S227.065 



Assumes 2.5% CPI adjustment 
per year 

Increases to occur every 5 years. 



49 



attachment III 
5 ap,e I ot 2 



O -3 



H 



2 ? § 

O — Vi 

s 3 » 

3. rc — 



H 





H 








2 ? 

o g 


3 


2 




z 


PP 


a 3 




3 




= P 










o l-> 


3. n 






n 














x 


n 


73 




n p 


o 








C 13" 


< 

f> 


B 


< 




3 



i 



I 



i 



63 

5 



i 



s? = 



i 



< 

a 
o 
■ 


jj 


2 

3 


3 

r. 

as 


Z 

5 


o 


r 1 






n 


v; 


■<' 


v <" 


T, 




3 


m 


— 


c 
o 


P 




— 


a 






S 


- 


3 


ST 


3 








oo 


rt 




< 


t: 


o 






EL 










o 
5 


■3 




6 


































2 


^j> 






























o 








— 


o 








-. 






























— • 


n 








r" 


c 




























rf 










B 




















- 










■ 









































g 




















1 — ' 











M 


-•> 






o 


-J 






o 


^-J 


© 


.u 


c* 


s 


i-n 


o 


- 


^ 



50 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 8 - File 00-0095 
Note: 

Department: 
Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 



Description: 



This item was continued from the February 2, 2000 
Finance and Labor Committee Meeting. 

Department of Public Health (DPH) 

Hearing to consider the release of reserved funds in 
the amount of $50,000 for DPH to fund an actuarial 
study, as part of an overall feasibility stud}', of the 
Methadone by Prescription Program. 

$50,000 

During the FY 1999-2000 budget review, the Board 
of Supervisors appropriated $50,000 in the DPH 
budget, and placed such funds on reserve, pending 
submission of contract and related cost details, for 
DPH to provide physician training, as part of the 
Methadone by Prescription Program. 

In February of 1998, the Board of Supervisors 
directed the Department of Public Health (DPH) to 
establish the Methadone by Prescription Program to 
permit physicians to prescribe methadone for 
patients addicted to opiates, as an alternative to 
providing methadone solely in clinics (Resolution 56- 
98). An interdisciplinary planning group, comprised 
of providers, community groups, and DPH programs, 
developed a model program to permit physicians to 
prescribe methadone as a treatment to individuals 
addicted to opiates. 

In November of 1999. the Board of Supervisors 
authorized DPH to accept $100,000 in Federal grant 
funds to conduct a feasibility study of the Methadone 
by Prescription Program to determine provider 
interest in participating in the program, conduct 
training sessions for providers, develop a centralized 
data base, develop quality control and evaluation 
protocols, and conduct an actuarial study of the 
program (File 99-1993). 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

51 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



The $50,000 in reserved funds, which is the subject 
of this hearing and is additional to the $100,000 
Federal grant funds noted above, was appropriated 
by the Board of Supervisors and placed on reserve in 
the FY 1999-2000 budget review to conduct provider 
training for the Methadone by Prescription Program. 
DPH is now requesting the release of the subject 
$50,000 in reserved funds to conduct an actuarial 
study of the Methadone by Prescription Program, 
instead of funding a contract for DPH to provide 
physician training, as part of the Methadone by 
Prescription Program. According to Dr. Herminia 
Palacio of DPH, both provider training and the 
actuarial study are part of the overall feasibility 
study for the Methadone by Prescription Program, as 
noted above. Dr. Palacio states that DPH is now 
proposing to expend the subject $50,000 in reserved 
funds on an actuarial study of the Methadone by 
Prescription Program, since the previously approved 
Federal grant for $100,000 has funded the contract 
for DPH to provide physician training as part of the 
Methadone by Prescription Program 



Budget: 



The proposed budget for the actuarial study to be 
conducted by Milliman & Robertson, an actuarial 
firm, is as follows: 





Hours 


$/Hour 


Total 


Actuarial Analyst 


150 


$102 


$15,300 


Associate Actuary 




202 


15,150 


Associate Actuary 


37.5 


270 


10,125 


Principal 




340 


2,550 


Principal 


3.75 


495 


1.856 




273.75 




$•44,981 


Research and Data- 








base Expenses 






5.019 


Total Budget 






$50,000 



Comments: 



1. According to Ms. Okubo. Milliman & Robertson, 
an actuarial firm, has been identified, by an Request 
For Qualifications process, to perform the actuarial 
cost analysis. The proposed budget allows for 273.75 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

52 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



professional hours for the actuarial study at an 
average rate of $164 per hour. According to Ms. 
Okubo, DPH initially contacted 11 firms regarding 
the proposed study, and eight of those firms 
requested Request for Qualification forms. Mi lb man 
& Robertson was the only firm to respond to DPH 
regarding this project. 

2. According to Ms. Anne Okubo of DPH, the purpose 
of the actuarial cost analysis is to determine the 
potential cost of providing the Methadone by 
Prescription Program. Ms. Okubo states that DPH 
proposes to use $50,000 for an actuarial cost analysis 
to estimate the cost of implementing three stages of 
the proposed Methadone by Prescription Program. 
Each stage would target 10 percent, 50 percent and 
100 percent, respectively, of the eligible heroin-user 
population, who would seek treatment for their 
addiction. According to Ms. Okubo, the estimated 
number of active heroin users in San Francisco is 
13.000 to 15,000. However, Ms. Okubo states that, at 
this time, DPH does not have an estimate of the 
number of active heroin users who would seek 
treatment for their addiction in the proposed 
Methadone by Prescription Program, and that one 
goal of the proposed actuarial study would be to 
estimate the number of such individuals in order to 
estimate the cost of the implementation in each of 
the three stages, noted above. 

3. Ms. Okubo advises that, in order to estimate the 
cost of each stage of the proposed Methadone by 
Prescription Program, the actuarial analysis would: 

(a) estimate the number of heroin users in San 
Francisco who would seek treatment for their 
addiction in the Methadone by Prescription Program, 

(b) compare the capacity of existing programs to the 
estimate of heroin users seeking treatment, (c) collect 
data on Medi-Cal and commercial insurance plan 
reimbursement rates for methadone and other 
substance abuse treatment services, primary care 
services, and mental health services, provided by 
private as well as DPH providers, and (d) analyze 
utilization data for existing methadone treatment 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

53 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

services funded by Medi-Cal and General Fund 
monies. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed release of reserves. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

54 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 9 - File 00-0235 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance and Labor Committee at its meeting 
of March 22, 2000. 



Department: 
Item: 



Location: 



Purpose of Leases: 



Lessor: 



Lessee: 



Airport 

Resolution approving two new automated teller 
machine leases for the new International Terminal 
between Travelex America, Inc. and the City and 
County of San Francisco, acting b\' and through its 
Airport Commission. 



New International 
Airport. 



Terminal Complex of the 



The proposed two new leases would provide space 
in the new International Terminal for 20 to 22 
automated teller machines (ATM), at ten different 
locations. Travelex America, Inc. would install and 
operate the proposed ATMs. Travelex America, Inc. 
is required to install at least two ATMs at each of 
the ten locations, and has the option to install a 
third ATM at two of the ten locations, resulting in a 
maximum of 22 ATMs. The Airport issued two 
separate leases to operate ATMs in order to provide 
lease opportunities to as many companies as 
possible, however, Travelex America, Inc. was the 
only company to submit bids for the two subject 
leases (See below "Description" section). 

City and County of San Francisco, acting by and 
through its Airport Commission. 

Travelex America, Inc., a Delaware Corporation 



Monthly Rental Revenues 
Payable by Travelex America. Inc. 
to the Airport: 



Annual Rental 
Revenues Payable by 
Travelex America, Inc. 
to the Airport: 



$20,125 monthly for each lease, for a total of 
$40,250 per month for both leases ($241,500 
annually per lease, or $483,000 annually for both 
leases.) 



Beginning from the first year of the lease, and 
through the duration of the five-year lease period. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

55 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

there is no historical data for making such 
forecasts. 

However, according to Mr. Rhoades, Travelex 
stated in its bid to the Airport that it plans to 
request permission from the Airport Director to 
impose a transaction surcharge on all ATM 
customers, as stated in Attachment II, provided by 
the Airport. Under the terms of the lease, Travelex 
may not charge a transaction surcharge of more 
than $1.50 per customer use, and Travelex would 
pay the Airport 33 percent of those surcharges. 
Under the terms of the lease, Travelex Amerj 
Inc. must have written approval from the Airport 
Director to impose a transaction surcharge, as 
stated in the lease as follows: 

Tenant shall not charge Transaction 
Surcharges except as approved by Director 

[emphasis added]. The Maximum amount of any 
such Transaction Surcharge that may be 
approved shall be $1.50 per Customer Use. The 
amount of any such Transaction Surcharge and 
a clear description of the customers to which it 
applies must be posted in a clearly visible 
manner on the exterior of the ATM unit, or stated 
clearly through the ATMs electronic display 
requesting the Customer if they agree to continue 
the transaction with a Transaction Surcharge 
before the Customer Use is 

completed. ..Transaction Surcharges shall be 
subject to Percentage Rent as described in the 
lease. 

Attachment II also contains: (a) the companies that 
currently hold leases with the Airport for ATMs in 
the Airport, (b) the annual Minimum Annual 
Guarantees paid by each of these companies to the 
Airport for the ATMs, and (c) the total combined 
surcharge revenues of $315,192 paid to the Airport 
by these companies for the ATM leases during 
1999. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

57 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

the base annual rent payable by Travelex America, 
Inc. to the Airport includes the Minimum Annual 
Guarantee of $241,500 for each lease, for a total of 
$483,000 per year, subject to Consumer Price Index 
(CPI) annual adjustments. The $483,000 total 
Minimum Annual Guarantee for both leases 
applies to the ten proposed ATM locations, 
regardless of whether Travelex installs 20 or 22 
ATMs. In addition to the Minimum Annual 
Guarantee of $241,500 for each lease, Travelex 
America, Inc. would pay to the Airport Percentage 
'Rent and Transaction Rent, defined as follows: 

"Percentage Rent " means rent paid in addition to 
and without set off against the [Minimum 
Annual Guarantee], in an amount equal to 
thirty-three percent (33%) of any Transaction 
Surcharge and/or changes for Optional Uses 
[defined as shown in Attachment I to this report] 
approved by Director and charged to ATM 
Customers who use the ATMs on the Premises. 

"Transaction Rent" means rent paid in addition 
to and without set off against the [Minimum 
Annual Guarantee], in an amount equal to ten 
cents ($0.10) for each Customer Use of Tenant's 
ATM on the Premises except that Transaction 
Rent shall not be payable with respect to 1) ATM 
Customer Use as to which Percentage Rent is 
payable, and 2) ATM Customer Use for which no 
transaction is completed due to reject of a 
customer's card or aborting by the customer of 
the ATM Customer Use prior to concluding any 
transaction. 

According to Mr. Bob Rhoades of the Airport, the 
Airport has not projected future revenues to be paid 
by Travelex to the Airport, in addition to the 
Minimum Annual Guarantee of $241,500 for each 
lease, based on anticipated Percentage and 
Transaction Rent payments. Mr. Rhoades advises 
that estimating demand for the new ATMs and 
related surcharge revenues is difficult since the 
ATMs will be located in a new building, for which 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

56 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Term of Lease: 



Right of Renewal: 



Utilities and Janitorial 
Provided by Lessor: 

Description: 



Tenant 
Improvements: 



The two proposed leases would commence on 
September 26, 2000. Each lease would be for a five 
year period, terminating on September 25, 2005. 

The Airport would have sole discretion to grant two 
one-year extensions for each lease. 

The Lessee pays for the costs of all utilities and 
janitorial services. 

On August 17, 1999, the Airport Commission 
• requested bids for two Automated Teller Machine 
Leases for the new International Terminal 
Building. Subsequently, on December 21, 1999. the 
Airport Commission adopted a resolution awarding 
the two leases to Travelex America. Inc.. the sole 
bidder (Resolution No. 99-0458). According to Mr. 
Rhoades, the sole bidder, Travelex America, Inc., 
submitted a Minimum Annual Guarantee bid of 
11,500. Mr. Rhoades advises thai the Airport 
ued Invitations to Bid for the two ATM leases to 
1 11 firms. Mr. Rhoades advises that the Airport 
decided to issue two separate Leases, to operate 10 
to 11 ATMs each, in order to provide lease 
opportunities to as many companies as possible. 
Attachment II also explains why the Airport 
received only one bid to operate the ATM- at the 
Airport. 

Under the two proposed leases, Travelex America, 
Inc. would install and operate 20 to 22 ATMs, at 
ten different locations throughout the new 
International Terminal. The ATMs would operate 
24 hours a day, seven days a week. 

The Lessee would be required, at its sole cost, to 
design and construct the ATM enclosures, including 
all fixtures, furnishings and equipment necessary 
to Travelex America Inc.'s operations under the 
subject lease. Travelex America, Inc.'s costs for 
these improvements shall not be less than $5,000 
per ATM, or $100,000 to $110,000 for all 20 to 22 
ATMs. This minimum of $5,000 does not include 
the cost of purchasing and installing the ATMs 
themselves. According to Mr. Rhoades. the Airport 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

58 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

REVISED 4/7/00 Item 9 - File 00-0235 

requires a minimum of $5,000 in improvements per 
ATM to ensure that Travelex America, Inc. 
constructs ATM enclosures consistent with the 
design, materials and quality of the new 
International Terminal. 

Comments: 1. Mr. Rhoades anticipates that all 20 to 22 ATMs 

in the new International Terminal will be 
completed by August 15, 2000. Mr. Rhoades advises 
that the Airport's new International Terminal is 
now scheduled to open September 26, 2000, or 
three months later than the previously estimated 
opening date of June 26, 2000, in order to allow the 
Airport time to test the new facilities. 

2. In November of 1999, the voters of San Francisco 
approved Proposition F to prohibit banks and other 
financial institutions from charging a fee to persons 
who do not have an account with that bank or 
financial institution, for use of that bank or 
financial institution's automated teller machines in 
San Francisco. These fees are often in addition to 
fees charged to the customer by the customer's own 
bank. In response to passage of Proposition F, Bank 
of America, Wells Fargo and the California 
Bankers' Association sued the City, arguing that 
the City had no authority to restrict the fees that 
banks charge customers. In November of 1999, a 
U.S. District Court Judge granted a preliminary 
injunction preventing the City from enacting 
Proposition F. According to Mr. Marc Slavin of the 
City Attorney's Office, upon appeal, the injunction 
was upheld in the U.S. 9 th Circuit Court of Appeals. 
The case has now moved to trial in the U.S. District 
Court. No trial date has been set. Mr. Slavin 
advises that the City Attorney's Office has not yet 
formally determined whether Proposition F's 
restriction on surcharge fees would apply to ATMs 
at the Airport. 

3. Mr. Slavin advises that the City Attorney's Office 
has not yet formally determined whether Travelex 
America, Inc. fits the definition of "bank or 
financial institution," as defined in Proposition F. 
However, if the City Attorney's Office determines 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

59 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

that Travelex America, Inc. does fall within the 
purview of Proposition F and that Proposition F 
applies to ATMs at the Airport, and if Proposition F 
is upheld in the courts, then Travelex America, Inc. 
would be prohibited from charging the proposed 
surcharge of up to $1.50. 

As previously reported, the Airport has not 
estimated the amount of revenues that would be 
generated by such proposed surcharges. However, 
in accordance with the proposed lease provisions, 
the Airport would receive 33 percent of these 
surcharge revenues from Travelex America, Inc. 

4. The Budget Analyst notes that under the 
proposed leases, th<- Airport Director would have 
the authority to approve such transaction 
surcharges of up to $1.50 per customer u 

5. In the time since the subject resolution was 
continued to the Call of the Chair by the Finance 
and Labor Committee at its meeting of March 22, 
2000, the Airport has amended the two subject 
ATM leases with Travelex America. Inc. The 
leases, as amended, now state that if the courts 
uphold Proposition F. and determine that 
Proposition F applies to the ATMs al the Airport 
covered by the subject leases (thereby precluding 
transaction surcharges being charged by Travelex 
America. Inc. to ATM customers at the Airport) 
Travelex America would have the option to 
terminate the subject ATM leases with the Airport, 
without penalty. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy 

matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

60 



Attachment I 
Page l or 3~ 



EXHIBIT B 
USE AND OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS 



1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS : All ATM Services shall be provided on a non- 
exclusive basis, and Airpon reserves die right to sell and to permit other Airoon tenants to 
provide such services. Tenant mav uot offer any services not described below as being 
"Required" or "Optional", without Director's prior consent. 

2. REQUIRED/OPTIONAL SERVICES : In the event Director permits any service to be 
sold or offered that is not listed below, or otherwise permits any other change in the 
Permined Use, this Exhibit shall be deemed amended without need for a formal 
amendment of this Lease.' Tenant shall be required to operate the Premises in accordance 
with the requirements, and offer the service, as described below: 

A. Required Uses: 

Tenant shall provide the following services, on a non-exclusive basis: 

1. Dispense United States currency. 

2. Provide access to network support form no less than four of the following 
networks: Plus. Star. Cirrus. GlobalAccess and Interlink and accept no less than 
four of the following credit cards: .American Express. Diner's Club, MasterCard. 
Visa, Discover/Novus Card. 

3. Provide a written receipt of each transaction. 

4. Provide display functions on user operation. 

5. Display transaction fee; surcharge information. 

B. Optional Uses: 

Tenant may provide, on a non-exclusive basis, the following "Optionai Use. as 
approved in writing by the Director. Any "Optional Use" for which Tenant receives or 
charges a commission, surcharge or other fee shell be subject to pavment of 
percentage rent as described in Section 4 of the Lease. 

1 . Provide access to financial networks and credit cards other than those - 
under Exhibit B 2.A.2. hereto. 

2. Dispense traveler's checks. 

3. Dispense United States postage stamps at face value. 

4. Provide tickets for San Francisco regional area cultural, performing arts and 
sporting events. 



5. Disoense airline tickets. 



Exhibit B - Pa'-'tf 1 

61 



Attachment I 
Paee 2 of 3 



6. Display animated software graphics 

7. Accepc deposits to accounts. 

8. Handle debit card transactions. 

9. Other services consistent with the operations of ATMs that can be demonbt/atea to 
benefit customers and the traveling public, if and as approved bv the Airrjon 
Director. 

3. PROHIBITED USES/SERVICE 

Tenant understands and agrees that "he following products or services are not included 
within the Permitted Use. without the pnor written consent of Director, which censer.: ma 
granted or denied in Director's absolute and sole discretion. 

1. .Any and ail sales of phone cards 

2. Dispense or exchange fore:gr. cur- e.ncy 

3. Offer gambling of an;. 

4. Display advertising, except that electronic display of Tenant's services dur : 
"wait" times while transaci processing shall not be deemed to be 
advertising prohibited 

5. Sell any type of merchandise 
A OPERATIONS 

A. Hours of Operations 

Each ATM shall operate rwent> -: lays a wee> 

holidays. 

B. Maintenance and Operation of Units 

ATMs must be capable of handling. \ ia telephone link; access to accounts for transact: 
inducing withdrawals, deposits ar.c charges against credit lines. Without lim 
generality of Section 3.1 1 [Compliance with Law?". Ten 

ATMs to be in compliance with all Governmental, Banking and F.AA Regulations 
security requirements and Airport Rules ar.c Regulations. Tenant shall be responsib 
secure transport of cash and receipts to and from each specific ATM location. Pursuant to 
F.AA Regulations, no arms are permitted beyond the security checkpc 
not be responsible for escorting ATM service personnel. 

the ATMs and each location will be kept in clean, dust free, neat anc first-class business-like 
and orderly condition at all times. The ATMs will be serviced and monitorec in a manner thai 
ensures the continual and uninterrupted operation of each unit. The Airport Director ma\ 
require more frequent servicing and stocking upon written notice to Tenant 
maintain and service units according to the aforesaid standard will result in the imoosii r 

Exhibit B - Pa»- 2 

,£0 



Attachment I 
Page 3 of 3 



progressively stringent fines, as provided in Section 15.S hereto. Emergencv service resoonse 
should be available within ninety (90) minutes of notice. Except for emergencv response, 
servicing of the ATM units must be done during off-peak hours of 2:30 p.m. through 5:30 
p.m. and 8:30 p.m. through 5:30 a_m. or other hours as may be designated in writing from 
time to rime by Director. 

C. Informational Displays 

Tenant shall provide and dispiay at each ATM unit ail written directions necessary to inscruc; 
customers in the operation of the ATM. Tenant shall also provide, either through the ATM's 
electronic display or affixed to the ATM. information for the obtaining machine services 
and/or refunds. Tenant shall not place or install any racks, stands or other dispiav on anv 
Airport property outside the Premises. 

D. Transaction Surcharges 

Tenant shall not charge Transaction Surcharges except as approved in writing bv Director. 
The Maximum amount of any such Transaction Surcharge that may be approved shall be 
SI. 50 per Customer Use. The amount of any such Transaction Surcharge and a clear 
description of the customers to which it applies must be posted in a dearly visible manner on 
the exterior of the ATM unit, or stated clearly through the ATM's electronic display 
requesting the Customer if they agree to continue the transaction with a Transaction 
Surcharge before the Customer Use is completed. .Any Transaction Surcharges charged b\ 
Tenant must be consistent throughout the Airport and cannot exceed charges at other locations 
in Tenant's system. Transaction Surcharges shall be subject to Percentage Rent as described 
in the Lease. 

E. Management 

Tenant shall seiect and appoint a full-time experienced manager fully authorized to reoresent 
and act on behalf of Tenant providing an emergency contact number on a twenty-four 24 
hour basis. 

Tenant shall not staff the ATM locations, conduct other business, provide other services or 
sell any type of merchandise. No brochures cr advertising will be displayed without pi 
written approval from the Airport Director 

The provisions set fourth in this Exhibit B shall be in addition to and not in limitation of the 
other Drovisions in the Lease. 



nil 8 - ?!■:■: : 



Attachment II 
Faee 1 of 2 



San Francisco International Airport 



?aSox8C97 

i*n rrjncjco. G* WU3 

Ttt «£0.79<5COO 

r4»S;u./>i.iOOS 

«"»«» rlysfo.com 



.AIRPORT COMMISSION 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SaN FRANCISCO 



co«»isno. 
CITY JND COUNTY 
Of 5*« (»*™c:SJO 

WILUt L »»0»<r<.jB. 
Mjron 

MtNRr L J[«M*K 
rmtstotMT 

/ICf ?>tilO(MT 

lirMAIl 5. JTHUNSlCY 

'w^NOA t. C3AVTON 



TO. Emiiic Neumann 

Budge: Analyst's 02c: 



DATE: February 24, 2000 



FROM: Jod Ballcsieros 

SUBJECT: File f?OCC235 - Airport ATM Services Lease 

Belcw please find the background information you requested regarding the Resolution 
before the Board of Supervisors approving the Airport's Lease for ATM Services. 

SURCHARGES 



JCMN L MART 



Trayelex America, Inc. plans to charge a surcharge as permitted in Exhibit B. 7r-e ammmt 
of the surcharge will not exceed 51-50. 

The Aimer wtf] receive 33% of inv surcharge Travelex charges 

1 ' ' ' 

CURRENT ATM LEASE AGREEMENTS 



?ar> 



Barik of America currently has two Leases with ATM Machines: Lease LS6-0039 has two 
bank branches and eight ATM machines and a MAG cf 5214,160 (plus additional surcharge 
and transaction rents) and Lease L91-OQ29 has six ATM machines and a MAG of 
(pius additional surcharge and transaction rents). 

Wells Fargo Bank Lease 97-0293 has 1 ATM machines and a MAG of 3 - ! 1 
additional surcharge and transaction rents). 

The total amount of transaction fee and surcharge revenues generated bv the leases in 
calendar year 1999 equaled 5315,192. 



Attachment il 
Pase 2 or 2 



Enuiis Neumann; 
February 24, 2000 : 
?3S= 2 ' 



ESTIMATED ANNUAL RENTAL REVENUES 



Travelex America, Inc. was the sole responsive bidder, and Travelex America, Inc. will execute 
both Leases, wiril the bid amount of 5241,500 which will be the minimum annual guarantee for 
each Lease for the first year. Travelex America, Inc. will pay the MAG for each Lease plus, 
additional surcharge and transaction rents. 

There are no estimated forecasts for revenues generaied from transaction fees at this time as 
these fees are based on user volume. Due to the fact that the ATM machines will be located in a 
building that did'not exist previously, there is no historical data on which to make such forecasts. 



BLDDLNG PROCESS 

Tne Airport offered Invitarions to Bid for the ATM services lease to 158 firms. Staff received 
one bid from Travelex America, Inc. for 5241,500. 

Bank of America and "wells Fargo Bank were invited to bid on these leases. However, both 
companies cited'issues with the rent structure, the 5180,000 Minimum Bid, and the outcome of 
legal activity surrounding Proposition "F*, the initiative that would prohibit ATM surcharges in 
San Francisco. 



&S 



Memo to Finance and Labor Commit tee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 10 - File 00-0519 



Department: 
Item: 

Description: 
(1) 



Location: 

Purpose of Lease: 

Lessor: 

No. of Sq. Ft. and 
Cost Per Montb: 

Annual Cost: 

Percentage Increase 
Over 1999-2000: 

Utilities and Janitor 
Provided by Lessor: 

Term of Lease: 

Right of Renewal: 
Source of Funds: 



Department of Real Estate (DRE) 
Department of Public Health (DPH) 

Resolution authorizing extension and renewal of nine 
ting leases of real property leased by the Department 
of Public Health 

Each of the nine proposed DPH leases is summarized 
below: 

298 Monterey Boulevard (entire building) 

Outpatient Mental Health Clinic (since 1 

John William Powell and Sylvia Campbell Powell 



(2) Location: 



Purpose of Lease: 
Lessor: 



4.025 square feet @ approximately $1.06 per square 
foot per month, or $4,265 per month (see Comment 
No. 1). 

180 



Approximately 31 percent 



Janitorial services only. 

July 1, 2000 on a month-to-month basis (not to 
exceed 12 months) 

None 

68 percent State and Federal, 32 percent General 
Fund 

3901-3905 Mission Street (portion of the ground 
floor) 

Outpatient Mental Health Clinic (since 1983) 

Giovacchino and Armando Diodati 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

66 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



No. of Sq. Ft. and 
Cost Per Month: 



Annual Cost: 

Percentage Increase 
Over 1999-2000: 



2,570 square feet @ $1.20 per square foot per 
month, or $3,084 per month. 

$37,008 



None 



Utilities and Janitor 

Provided by Lessor: ' Landlord provides all utilities and janitorial 

services. 



Term of Lease: 

Right of Renewal: 
Source of Funds: 

(3) Location: 

Purpose of Lease: 

Lessor: 

No. of Sq. Ft. and 
Cost Per Month: 

Annual Cost: 

Percentage Increase 
Over 1999-2000: 



July 1, 2000 on a month-to-month basis (not to 
exceed 12 months). 

None 

68 percent State and Federal, 32 percent General 
Fund 

3911 Mission Street (portions of the ground floor) 

Outpatient Mental Health Services (since 1984) 

Giovacchino and Armando Diodati 



1,500 square feet @ $1.20 per square foot per 
month, or $1,800 per month. 

$21,600 



None 



Utilities and Janitor 

Provided by Lessor: Landlord provides all utilities and janitorial 
services. 



Term of Lease: 



Right of Renewal: 



July 1, 2000 on a month-to-month basis (no! to 
exceed 12 months) 

None 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

67 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Source of Funds: 

(4) Location: 

Purpose of Lease: 

Lessor: 

No. ofSq. Ft. and 
Cost Per Month: 

Annual Cost: 

Percentage Increase 
Over 1999-2000: 

Utilities and Janitor 
Provided by Lessor: 

Term of Lease: 

Right of Renewal: 
Source of Funds: 

(5) Location: 
Purpose of Lease: 

Lessor: 

No. of Sq. Ft. and 
Cost Per Month: 

Annual Cost: 

Percentage Increase 
Over 1999-2000: 



68 percent State and Federal, 32 percent General 
Fund 

111 Potrero Avenue (ground floor) 

Adult Outpatient Mental Health Clinic (since 1987) 

111 Potrero Partnership 

6,000 square feet @ $2.50 per square foot per 
month, or $ 15,000 per month. 

$180,000 
25 percenl 

Janitorial services only. 

July 1. _!000 on a month-to-month basis (not to 
exceed 12 months) 

None 

68 percent State and Federal, 32 percent General 
Fund 

10-20 Twentv-ninth Street (entire building) 

Children's Outpatieni Mental Health Clinic (since 
1972) 

George, Lois, and Lawrence Maisels 



2,400 square feet (g 1 approximately $0.62 per square 
foot per month, or $1,500 per month. 

$18,000 



None 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

68 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Utilities and Janitor 
Provided by Lessor: 

Term of Lease: 



Right of Renewal: 
Source of Funds: 

(6) Location: 

Purpose of Lease: 

Lessor: 

No. of Sq. Ft. and 
Cost Per Month: 

Annual Cost: 

Percentage Increase 
Over 1999-2000: 

Utilities and Janitor 
Provided by Lessor: 

Term of Lease: 

Right of Renewal: 
Source of Funds: 

(7) Location: 
Purpose of Lease: 

Lessor: 



None 

July 1, 2000 on a month-to-month basis (not to 
exceed 12 months) 

None 

68 percent State and Federal, 32 percent General 
Fund 

755-61 South Van Ness Avenue (ground floor) 

Adult Outpatient Mental Health Clinic (since 1973) 

AIM TWO 



7,101 square feet @ approximately $1.21 per square 
foot per month, or $8,591 per month. 

$103,092 



10 percent 



None 

July 1, 2000 on a month-to-month basis (not to 
exceed 12 months) 

None 

68 percent State and Federal, 32 percent General 
Fund 

759 South Van Ness Avenue (entire second floor) 

Children's Outpatient Mental Health Clinic (since 
1988) 

AIM TWO 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

69 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



(8) 



No. ofSq. Ft. and 
Cost Per Month: 



Annual Cost: 

Percentage Increase 
Over 1999-2000: 

Utilities and Janitor 
Provided by Lessor: 

Term of Lease: 



Right of Renewal: 
Source of Funds: 

Location: 

Purpose of Lease: 

Lessor: 

No. ofSq. Ft. and 
Cost Per Month: 

Annual Cost: 

Percentage Increase 
Over 1999-2000: 



6,445 square feet @ approximately $1.55 per square 
foot per month, or $9,961 per month. 

$119,532 

Approximately 10.7 percent 

None 

July 1. 2000 on a month-to-month basis (not to 
exceed 12 months) 

None 

68 percent State and Federal, 32 percent General 
Fund 

1540 Market Street (Suite 250) 

DPH Wedge Program (since 1996) 

1540 Market Company 



2,121 square feet @ approximately $1.08 per square 
foot per month, or $2,297.75 per month. 

$27,573 



None 



Utilities and Janitor 

Provided by Lessor: Landlord is responsible for utilities and janitorial 
services. 



Term of Lease: 



Right of Renewal: 



July 1. 2000 on a month-to-month basis (not to 
exceed 12 months) 

None 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

70 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Source of Funds: 



(9) 



Location: 

Purpose of Lease: 

Lessor: 

No. of Sq. Ft. and 
Cost Per Month: 



Annual Cost: 

Percentage Increase 
Over 1999-2000: 



Federal Centers for Disease Control grant for HIV 
prevention 

1540 Market Street (Suite 260) 

DPH Tobacco Program (since 1995) 

1540 Market Company 



1,296 square feet @ approximately $1.08 per square 
foot per month, or $1,404 per month. 

$16,848 



None 



Utilities and Janitor 

Provided by Lessor: Landlord is responsible for utilities and janitorial 
services. 



Term of Lease: 

Right of Renewal: 
Source of Funds: 



July 1, 2000 on a month-to-month basis (not to 
exceed 12 months)) 

None 

Proposition 99 and Proposition A tobacco grant 
funds. 



Comments: 



1. The Budget Analyst has been informed that the DRE 
wiU submit an amended resolution to the Board of 
Supervisors increasing the proposed rental rate for 298 
Monterey Avenue (Lease No. 1) from $3,250 per month to 
$4,265. Therefore, this report is based on that amended 
resolution. 

2. Mr. Steve Alms of DRE states that DPH has been 
searching for alternative accommodation to both 111 
Potrero Avenue (Lease No. 4) and 755-61 South Van Ness 
Avenue (Lease No. 6) since FY 1996-97, which is why both 
leases were on a month-to-month basis. Now, according 
to Mr. Alms, after searching for alternative 
accommodation over four fiscal years, the DPH has 
requested the DRE to enter into negotiations at 755-61 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

71 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

South Van Ness Avenue for a renovation and a long-term 
lease which could permit the consolidation at thai Bite of 
the Adult Outpatient Mental Health Clinics which are 
currently located separately at 111 Potrero Avenue and 
755-61 South Van Ness Avenue. The proposed long-term 
lease would also require minor improvements to t he- 
second floor of the building (Lease No. 7), and would 
consolidate Leases No. 6 and 7 into a single long-term 
lease agreement. It is unlikely that the negotiations, 
renovation construction, and consolidation of the clinics 
and lease agreements could be completed until the second 
half of FY 2000-2001, according to Mr Alms. The new 
lease would be subject to the approval of the Board of 
Supervisors 

3. In relation to 10-20 Twenty-ninth Street (Lease X 

Mr. Alms states that the DPH has been trying to move 
from that location since FY 1996-97. DRE, at DPH's 
request, is negotiating a new lease for 1527 Mission 
Street to better serve clients of the 10-20 Twenty-ninth 
Street clinic who live in the South Mission District. 
Separate legislation will be submitted to the Board of 
Supervisors seeking authority to enter into the proposed 
lease at 4527 Mission Street. According to Ms. Judy 
Schutzman of DPH, the DPH is currently searching for an 
alternative Bayview location to establish a clinic for the 
clients of the 10-20 Twenty-ninth Street clinic who live in 
the Bayview district. In the meantime, Bayview cl; 
will continue to be served from the current 10-20 Twenty- 
ninth Street location. 

4. The attached memorandum, provided by Mr. Alms, 
explains the reasons for the following rent increases: 

• The approximately 31 percent increase in the annual 
rent for 29S Monterey Boulevard (Lease No. 1) 
following a 14 percent rent increase in FY 1999-2000. 
This has resulted in an overall rent increase of 
approximately 50 percent over three years, from 

• $2,850 monthly (S34.200 annually) in FY' 1998-99 to 
the proposed S4.265 month ($51,180 annually) in FY 
2000-2001. 

• The 25 percent increase in the annual rent for 111 
Potrero Avenue (Lease No. 4) following (a) a 31 
percent rent increase in the first three months of FY 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

72 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

1999-2000, (b) a 14.3 percent increase in the last nine 
months of FY 1999-2000, and (c) a 43 percent rent 
increase in FY 1998-99. This has resulted in an 
overall rent increase of approximately 168 percent 
over four years, from $5,602 monthly ($67,224 
annually) in FY 1997-98 to the proposed $15,000 
monthly ($180,000 annually) in FY 2000-2001. 

• The 10 percent increase in the annual rent for 755-61 
South Van Ness Avenue (Lease No. 6) following (a) a 
10 percent increase in FY 1999-2000, and (b) an 
approximately 25 percent increase in FY 1998-99. 
This has resulted in an overall rent increase of 
approximately 51 percent over four years, from $5,689 
monthly ($68,268 annually) in FY 1997-98 to the 
proposed $8,591 monthly ($103,092 annually) in FY* 
2000-2001. 

• The approximately 11 percent increase in the annual 
rent for 759 South Van Ness Avenue (Lease No. 7) 
following (a) a 12 percent increase in FY 1999-2000, 
(b) a 31 percent increase in FY 1998-99, and (c) a 5 
percent increase in FY 1997-98. This has resulted in 
an overall rent increase of approximately 71 percent 
over five years, from $5,842 monthly ($70,104 
annually) in FY 1996-97 to the proposed $9,961 
monthly ($119,532 annually) in FY 2000-2001. 

5. According to Ms. Schutzman, lease funding for all nine 
leases will be included in the FY 2000-2001 DPH budget 
request. 

6. Mr. Alms reports that all of the proposed rents reflect 
fair market value. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

73 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 




Harvev M. Rose 



Supervisor Yee 
Supervisor Bierman 
President Ammiano 
Supervisor Becerril 
Supervisor Brown 
Supervisor Katz 
Supervisor Kaufman 
Supervisor Leno 
Supervisor Newsom 
Supervisor Teim 
Supervisor Yaki 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Legislative Analyst 
Erin McGrath 
Stephen Kawa 
Ted Lakev 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

74 



APR-05-2000 15=03 



CCSF REAL ESTATE DEPT 



City and County of San Francisco 




Attachme nt 
Page 1 of 2 

Real Estate Division 
Administrative Services Department 



MEMORANDUM 



April 5, 2000 



TO: Harvey Rose 
Budget Analyst 

FROM: Steve Alms 

Senior Real Property Officer 
554-9865 




SUBJECT: Public Health Lease Renewals 
Fiscal Year 2000/2001 



The following explanations are provided in response to your questions regarding the various 
Public Health lease renewals. 

298 Monterey Boulevard (Item #1) 

The increase in rent from $3,250.00 to $4,265.00 per month represents an increase of 
approximately 31% over the prior year. Rent for the facility has historically been well below 
market, and the market continues to rise dramatically. The rent negotiated with the landlord for 
fiscal year 2000/2001 is at or below market rate. 

Ill Potrero Avenue (Item #4) 

The proposed increase in rent from $12,000.00 to $15,000.00 per month represents an increase of 
25% over the prior year. The rent increase reflects the significant change currently taking place in 
the market, and the landlord's expectation that the extension is intended to be for a short term. 
The change in the market continues to be driven by the much-publicized demand for office space 
to house the multi-media industry. The $2.50 per square foot rate negotiated with the landlord is 
market rate rent. 



755-61 South Van Ness Avenue (Item #6) 

The increase in rent from $7,810.00 to $8,591.00 per month represents an increase of 
approximately 10% over the prior year. As noted above, the market has changed dramatically. 
The market rate rent negotiated with the landlord for fiscal year 2000/2001 is a nominal change 
compared to the change in the market. As noted, the intent is to negotiate a long term, market 
rate lease for the entire building, which would include a major renovation of the premises 



(415)554-9850 
FAX: (415)552-9216 



Office of the Director of Property 
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 400 



San Francisco, 94102 



75 



APR-05-2000 15:09 CCSF REAL ESTATE DEPT Attachment 

Page 2 of 2 



759 South Van Ness Avenue (Item Ul) 

The increase in rent from S9.055.00 to $9,961.00 per month represents an increase of 
approximately 10% over the prior year. As noted above, the market has changed dramatically. 
The market rate rent negotiated with the landlord for fiscal year 2000/2001 is a nominal change 
compared to the change in the market. As noted, the intent is to negotiate a long term, market 
rate lease for the entire building, which would include a major renovation of the premises. 

At the request of the Department of Public Health, the Real Estate Division is currently 
negotiating the terms of a new long-term lease for the entire building at 755-765 and 759 South 
Van Ness Avenue. The clinic currently located at 1 1 1 Potrero Avenue would be consolidated 
with that now at 755-65 South Van Ness (ground floor), and the clinic currently located at 759 
South Van Ness (second floor) would remain at that location. In the mean time, it is prudent to 
maintain month-to-month agreements in order to maximize the City's ability to react in the 
current market. 

All of the rents proposed for the 2000/2001 fiscal year reflect fair market value. If there are other 
questions regarding the proposed renewals, please call me at 554-9865. 



H:U9\49»Sfy3flOO-2001 mtmo\ 

TOTAL P. 03 
76 



a*** 






CITY AND COUNTY 




OF SAN FRANCISCO 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 
FAX (415) 252-0461 



April 6, 2000 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
APR t 1 2000 



TO: ^Finance and Labor Committee 

FROM: ,Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 
Separate Report on FY 2000-2001 CDBG Budget 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Item 6 - File 00-0488 

Department: 

Item: 



Mayor's Office of Community Development (MOCD) 

Resolution approving the FY 2000-2001 Community Development 
Program. This resolution would (a) authorize the Mayor, on 
behalf of the City and County of San Francisco, to accept and 
expend the City's FY 2000-2001 Community Development Block 
Grant (CDBG) entitlement from the U.S. Department of Housing 
and Urban Development, and program income generated by the 
San Francisco Redevelopment Agency up to $33,734,275, which 
includes indirect costs of $160,000; and (b) approve the 
expenditure schedule for recipient departments and agencies and 
for indirect costs. 



Amount: 



Up to $33,734,276 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 
DATE, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Grant Period: 
Source of Funds: 



Description: 



Total Community Development Block Grant Program funding in 
FY 2000-2001 includes the FY 2000-2001 CDBG grant funds 
provided to the City by the U.S. Department of Housing and 
Urban Development, transfer and expenditure of reprogrammed 
funds from prior year Community Development Programs, and 
program income generated by the Mayor's Office of Community 
Development, the Mayor's Office of Housing (MOH), and the San 
Francisco Redevelopment Agency (SFRA), as follows: 



FY 2000-2001 CDBG Program funds 
Prior Year CDBG Program funds 
Program Income (MOH and SFRA' 
Total 



1)25,000 

350,000 

8.459.275 

$33,734,275 



July 1. 2000 through June 30, 2001 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 



Required Match: None 

Indirect Costs: $ 1 1 iO.000 



Under Title I of the Federal Housing and Community 
Development Act of 1974, as amended, and related Federal 
regulations, San Francisco is eligible to receive a Community 
Development Block Grant (CDBG). The primary objective of the 
CDBG Program is to develop viable urban communities by 
supporting programs providing decent housing, a suitable living 
environment, or economic opportunity for low- and moderate- 
income residents of San Francisco. 

The recommended FY 2000-2001 CDBG budget is $25,275,000, 
which is $64,945 or 0.25 percent more than the FY 1999-2000 
CDBG budget of $25,210,055. Section I through XIII of this 
report provides an analysis of the proposed FY 2000-2001 CDBG 
budget, including the Budget Analyst's recommendations. 

Additionally, funds in the amount of $8,459,275 would be used for 
specific program-income funded activities, as discussed in Section 
XIII of this report. 

Attachment I. provided by Ms. Pamela David of MOCD, contains 
an explanation of the proposed Capital Projects Pool within the 
Progam Income-Funded Activities program. 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
2 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 
DATE, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Comments: 



Attachment II is the CDBG Program Summary of 
Recommendations. The table includes the FY 1999-2000 CDBG 
budget, the proposed FY 2000-2001 budget, and a summary of 
changes from FY 1999-2000 to FY 2000-2001. 

1. The original grant period for the FY 1999-2000 CDBG Program 
funds was from April 1, 1999 through March 31, 2000. The FY 
2000-2001 CDBG grant period is from July 1, 2000 through June 
30, 2001, coinciding with the City's fiscal year. Therefore, the FY 
1999-2000 CDBG Program has been extended from April 1, 2000 
through June 30, 2000. In October of 1999, the Board of 
Supervisors approved the reprogramming of $3,920,955 in 
unencumbered balances from prior years' CDBG uncommitted 
balances, San Francisco Redevelopment Agency program income 
funds, and HUD Development Action Grants, to fund the 3 month 
extension (File 99-1826). 

2. The San Francisco Administrative Code stipulates that everj r 
nonprofit organization receiving funding through the City and 
County must file an Annual Economic Statement with the Clerk 
of the Board of Supervisors before the nonprofit organization can 
be allocated its final funding. MOCD advises that it expects all of 
the organizations to have filed their statements prior to the final 
allocation of the 1999 CDBG funds. 



Summary of 
Recommendations: 



The Budget Analyst's recommendations for the FY 2000-2001 
CDBG and Program Income budget are as follows: 

> Reduce the FY 2000-2001 Program Administration budget by 
$13,146, from the proposed amount of $4,416,605 to 
$4,403,459, and place the amount of $13,146 on reserve to be 
used for other CDBG eligible activities. 

> Reserve $533,581 of the requested FY 1999-2000 CDBG and 
Program Income funds, totaling $33,734,275, as follows: 

(1) $90,000 in the Facility Emergency Relief Pool, to be used to 
fund the Lavender Youth Recreation and Information 
Center, pending submission of a program plan and budget 
details. 

(2) $100,000 in the Mayor's Economic Development Pool, 
pending submission of a program plan and budget details. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

3 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

REVISED 4/7/00 Item 6 - File 00-0488 

(3) $43,581 in the MOCD Planning and Capacity Building 
Pool, pending submission of an expenditure plan and 
budget details. 

(4) $300,000 in the Program Income Capital Projects Pool, b 
be used to fund American with Disabilities Ac 
improvements for Brooks Hall, pending submission o 
budget details. 






Approval of funding in the amount of $4,204,827 for new or 
expanded programs is a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 

Approve funding m the amount of $29,516,302, including 
CDBG and Program Income programs, for existing programs 
for which the recommended budget for FY 2000-2001 was 
unchanged from the FY" 1999-2000 budget. 




Harvev M. Rose 



cc: Supervisor Yee 

Supervisor Bierman 
President Ammiano 
Supervisor Becerril 
Supervisor Brown 
Supervisor Katz 
Supervisor Kaufman 
Supervisor Leno 
Supervisor N'ewsom 
Supervisor Teng 
Supervisor Yaki 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Legislative Analyst 
Erin McGrath 
Stephen Kawa 
Ted Lakev 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

4 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Section I: Housing Program Administration - $2,482.560 

The MOCD proposes to allocate $2,482,560 in FY 2000-2001 to fund ten 
Housing Program Administration agencies, an increase of $214,880, or 9.3 
percent, from the FY 1999-20000 budget allocation of $2,267,680. 

Descriptions of the proposed Housing Program Administration programs with 
new or increased funding are as follows: 



Program 


FY 1999- 

2000 
Budget 


Proposed 
FY 2000- 

2001 
Budget 


Increase/ 

(Decrease) 

in FY 2000- 

2001 

Budget 


Asian, Inc. 

Increase low income housing opportunities 
and development primarily in the South of 
Market, Tenderloin, and Visitacion Valley 
areas. 


SO 


S211.180 


S211.180 


Asian Neighborhood Design 

Provides citywide technical assistance 
ad community education related to 
development and improvement of low 
income housing. 


316,200 


319,200 


3,000 


Mission Housing Development Corp. 

Increase low income housing opportunities 
primarily through new family and senior 
housing in Visitacion Valley and Outer 
Mission communities; and provide rehab 
loan assistance to low income homeowners 
Citywide. 


359,300 


360,000 


700 


Total New or Increased Funding 


$359,300 


$571,180 


$214,880 



Comment 



According to Mr. Joe LaTorre of MOH, Asian, Inc. received $211,180 in 
CDBG funding in FY 1998-1999 but no funding in FY 1999-2000. Mr. 
LaTorre states that program issues delayed the signing of the FY 1998-1999 
contract with Asian, Inc. in FY 1998-1999, and the FY* 1998-1999 CDBG 
funds in the amount of $211,180 were not released to Asian, Inc. until the 
end of the funding year. Therefore, such funds were carried over into the FY 

Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

5 



Memo to Finance and Labor Commn I 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

1999-2000 funding year and Asian, Inc. received no additional FY 1999-2000 
CDBG funds. 

Recommendations 

1. Approve $2,267,680 of the requested $2,479,560 for Housing Program 
Administration programs to continue funding for existing programs. 

2. Approval of $214,880 in funding for new or expanded Housing Program 
Administration programs is a policy matter for the Board of Supeivi- 



board of supervisors 
Bidget Analyst 

6 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Section II: Housing Program Pool - $5,406.501 

The MOH proposes to fund 15 new and continuing Housing Program Pool 
projects in FY 2000-2001. Funding for such projects would include prior year 
unallocated CDBG Housing Program Pool funds, program income funds, and 
FY 2000-2001 CDBG program funds. Housing Program Pool funds are used 
for the acquisition of land for low-income housing construction, for the 
renovation of existing buildings to be used for low-income housing, and for 
pre-development costs. 

Projected program funds, including the subject $5,406,501 CDBG funds, total 
$11,942,674. The FY* 2000-2001 CDBG allocation of $5,406,701 is $266,414 
or 4.7 percent less than the FY 1999-2000 allocation of $5,673,115. Funding 
sources for the Housing Program Pool are as follows: 



Source of Funds 


Amount 


Current and Prior Years' Unallocated CDBG Pool funds 
Program Income from Completed and Amortized Loans 
Estimated FY 2000-2001 Program Income 
FY 2000-2001 CDBG Funds 


$3,941,855 

2,354,118 

240,000 

5,406,701 


Total Funds 


$11,942,674 



MOH has proposed use of the Housing Program Pool funds, as follows: 



Program 


Proposed FY 
2000-2001 Budget 


Unexpended Existing Commitments 

473 Ellis Street 
34 Turk Street 
665 Clay Street 
651 Clay Street 

Subtotal 

Commitments Expected bv 7/1/2000 

Loans to low-income/elderly single 

family homeowners 
209 Golden gate Avenue (predevelopment 

costs) 
240 Hyde Street (capital improvements) 
1340 Portola (refinancing) 

Subtotal 


$287,900 

341,315 

2.850,000 

81.000 

$3,560,215 

$753,481 

78,480 
2,258,152 

397.000 
$3,487,113 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

7 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Program 


Proposed FY 
2000-2001 Budget 


Other Prooosed FY 2000-2001 Programs 

909 Geary Street (capital improvements) 
34 Turk Street (capital improvements) 
450 Ellis Street (capital improvements) 
220 Pierce Street (capital improvements) 
Supportive housing for homeless and 

disabled persons (site to be determined) 
Capital improvements to existing 

affordable housing owned by nonprofits 
(sites to be determined) 
Loans to low-income/elderly single family 

homeowners (sites to be determined) 

Subtotal 


i.OOO 

.000 

318,000 

■.o.ooo 

400,062 

- 284 

2.500.000 
$4,895,346 


Total Proposed Uses $11,942,674 



Comments 

According to Mr. Joe LaTorre of MOH, MOH will issue Notices of Funding 
Availability" for renovation of facilities to provide supportive housing for 
homeless and disabled individuals ($400,062) and for funds for capital repairs 
to existing nonprofit-owned affordable housi: 284), as shown in the 

table above. 

Recommendation 

Approve the requested amount of $5,406,501 for the FY 2000-2001 Housing 
Program Pool. 



Board of Siper\ isors 
Bidget Analyst 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Section III: Public Housing Program - $251.000 

The MOCD proposes to allocate $251,000 to fund four new Public Housing 
Program Projects in FY 2000-2001, an increase of $151,000, or 51 percent, 
from the FY 1999-2000 budget allocation of $100,000. 

Descriptions of the proposed Public Housing Program Pool with increased 
funding are as follows: 



Program 


FY 

1999- 

2000 

Budget 


Proposed 
FY 2000- 

2001 
Budget 


Increase/ 
(Decrease) 

in FY 

2000-2001 

Budget 


2401 Post Street 

Provide ADA facility upgrades at San 
Francisco Head Start Center at Westside 
Courts in the Western Addition. 





$80,000 


$80,000 


1111 Buchanan Street 

Provide ADA facility upgrades at Housing 
Authority site leased to the Department of 
Recreation and Parks for senior and 
disabled citizens in the Western Addition. 





100,000 


100,000 


125 West Point Road 

Provide ADA facility upgrades at San 
Francisco Head Start Center Located at 
Hunter's View in the Bayview. 





47,000 


47,000 


2525 Griffith Street 

Provide ADA facility upgrades at San 
Francisco Boys and Girls Club at the Alice 
Griffith Public Housing Family Development 
in the Bayview. 





24,000 


24,000 


Total New Program Funding in 
FY 2000-2001 






$251,000 


Programs funded in FY 1999-2000 and 
not funded in FY 2000-2001 


100.000 





(100.000) 


Total 


$100,000 


$251,000 


$151,000 



All of the projects under this program are for capital improvements and do 
not fund staff or administrative costs. The proposed cost for each project is 
based on an estimate prepared by an architectural consultant and reviewed 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

9 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Commit!''- Meeting 

by MOCD. The actual project expenditures will be determined through a 
competitive selection of contractors. 

The Budget Analyst has reviewed details of the summary budgets noted 
above, and has found that the requested amounts are reasonable. 

Recommendations 

Approval of the proposed FY 2000-2001 Public Housing Program Pool budget 
of $251,000 is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



Board of Supervisors 
Bidget Analyst 

10 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12. 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Section IV : Public Space Improvement Sl.666.214 

The MOCD proposes to allocate $1,666,214 to fund Public Space 
Improvement Projects in FY 2000-2001, a decrease of $22,001, or 1.3 percent, 
from the FY 1999-2000 budget allocation of $1,688,215. 

Descriptions of the proposed Public Space Improvements programs are as 
follows: 



Program 


FY 1999- 

2000 
Budget 


Proposed 
FY 2000- 

2001 
Budget 


Increase/ 

(Decrease) 

in FY 2000- 

2001 

Budget 


San Francisco Conservation Corps 

Funds would be used to install or 
renovate play structures at various 
sites in the City 


SI. 067,715 


SI. 210,714 


S142.999 


San Francisco League of Urban 
Gardeners 

Provide landscaping and other outdoor 
improvements to various community 
garden sites in the City 


310,500 


255,500 


(55,000) 


Public Space Improvement 
Program Pool 

Would be used to provide a 13.6 
percent contingency for the play 
structure and landscaping projects 
noted above 


200,000 


200,000 





Programs funded in FY 1999-2000 and 
not funded in FY 2000-2001 


110.000 





(110.000) 


Total 


$1,688,215 


$1,666,214 


($22,001) 



The Budget Analyst has reviewed details of the summary budgets noted 
above, and has found that the requested amounts are reasonable. 

Comments 

1. According to Mr. Jon Pon of MOCD, the San Francisco Conservation Corps 
(SFCC) would use SFCC staff to install or repair play structures. Required 
materials would be obtained through a competitive bid procedure. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

11 



Memo to Finance and Labor Commit I 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

2. Mr. Pon states that the Public Space Improvement Pool, totaling $200,000, 
would be used to fund 0.60 FTE to administer the program ($46,870), fund 
construction of one new play structure at a childcare center <S100,000), and 
modify existing play structures to comply with Public Playground Safety 
Standards ($53,130). 

Recommendations 

1. Approve funding in the amount of SI. 523, 205 out of the requested amount 
of $1,666,214 for ongoing Public Space Improvement programs, including 
$200,000 for the Public Space Improvement Pool, $1,067,715 for the San 
Francisco Conservation Corps, ami $255,500 for the San Francisco Urban 
Gardeners 

2. Approval of increased funding in the amount of $ 1 1- ,999 for the San 
Francisco Conservation Corps is a policy matter for the Board of Supen i 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

12 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Section V: New Facilities Development - $650,500 

The MOCD proposes to allocate $650,500 to fund six New Facilities 
Development Projects in FY 2000-2001, a decrease of $273,500, or 29.6 
percent, from the FY 1999-2000 budget allocation of $924,000. 

New facilities are defined as those projects in which the agency is purchasing 
or building new space, expanding into larger space, or renovating space for 
new programs not previously available from that agency. This program 
category involves development of multi-purpose neighborhood, senior, and 
mental health service centers in high need lower-income communities. 

All of the projects under this program are for capital improvements or new 
construction and do not fund staff or administrative costs. The proposed cost 
for each project is based on an estimate prepared by an architectural 
consultant and reviewed by MOCD. The actual expenditures will be 
determined through a competitive selection of contractors. 

Descriptions of the proposed New Facilities Development with new funding 
are as follows: 



Program 


FY 1999- 

2000 
Budget 


Proposed 
FY 2000- 

2001 
Budget 


Increase/ 

(Decrease) 

in FY 2000- 

2001 

Budget 


Community Center Project 

Construct computer education room and 
class room in community center serving 
lesbian, gay and transgender youth and 
adults 





90,000 


90,000 


Geneva Valley Development 
Corporation 

Complete shell and tenant improvements 
at new multi-service community center 
in Visitacion Valley 





150,000 


150,000 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget analyst 

13 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Program 


FY 1999- 

2000 
Budget 


Proposed 
FY 2000- 

2001 
Budget 


Increase/ 

(Decrease) 

in FY 2000- 

2001 

Budget 


North of Market Senior Services 
Rehabilitate basement and ground floor 
of newly acquired budding to be used for 
programs for seniors. 





100,000 


100,000 


YMCA of San Francisco 

Provide improvements at alternative 
high school, including electrical 
upgrades, ADA access work, fire 
sprinklers/alarm system, and fire rated 
stairwells 





100,000 


100,000 


Total New Program Funding in 
FY 2000-2001 






$440,000 


Programs funded in FY 1999-2000 and 
not funded or reduced in FY 2000-2001 


713,500 





(ST 13.500) 


Total 


$924,000 


$650,500 


($273,500) 



The Budget Analyst has reviewed budget details for the summary budgets 
noted above and has found them to be reasonable. 

Comment 

According to Mr. Pon, cost estimates for the capital improvement projects 
were developed by an architectural consultant and were reviewed by MOCD. 
All projects will be subject to the competitive bidding process. 

Recommendation 

1. Approval of requested funding of S440.000 for new projects to be funded 
from the FY 2000-2001 CDBG program funds is a policy matter for the Board 
of Supervisors. 

2. Approve $210,500 for continuing projects. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

14 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Section VI: Existing Facility Renovation - $1.342.600 

The MOCD proposes to fund 20 agencies in the amount of $1,342,600 for 
Existing Facilities Renovation in FY 2000-2001, an increase of $310,420 or 30 
percent, from the FY 1999-2000 budget allocation of $1,032,180. 

The Rehabilitation of Existing Facilities primarily involves rehabilitating 
buildings to meet health, fire and safety codes and licensing requirements. 
All of the projects under this program are for capital improvements or new 
construction and do not fund staff or administrative costs. The proposed cost 
for each project is based on an estimate prepared by an architect and 
reviewed by MOCD. The actual expenditures will be determined through a 
competitive bid process. 

Funding proposed by MOCD for 20 existing community facilities is as follows: 



Program 


FY 

1999- 

2000 

Budget 


Proposed 
FY 2000- 

2001 
Budget 


Increase/ 
(Decrease) 

in FY 

2000-2001 

Budget 


Arriba Juntos 

Install elevator to make second floor 
classrooms wheelchair accessible 





100,000 


100,000 


Asian Neighborhood Design 

Install elevator to improve accessibility to 
computer training center and classroom 





50,000 


50,000 


CAHEED 

Rehabilitate infant/toddler development 
facility 





60,000 


60.000 


Coleman Advocates for Children 

Improve access to early childhood 
development center, family support services, 
after school youth programs, and other 
services 





115.000 


115,000 



Board of Sipern isors 
Budget Analyst 

15 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Program 


FY 

1999- 

2000 

Budget 


Proposed 
FY 2000- 

2001 
Budget 


Increase/ 
(Decrease) 

in FY 

2000-2001 

Budget 


Economic Opportunity Council of SF 
Repair termite damage, replace windows, 
and improve interior fighting at childcare 
center at 200 Cashmere Street 


$0 


$80,000 


$80,000 


Economic Opportunity Council of SF 
Repair water damage and make safety 
improvements at Sojourner Truth Children's 
Center 





•00 


16,000 


Ingleside Community Center 
Upgrade electrical system and correct 
drainage at youth center 





25,000 


25,000 


Meals on Wheels of SF 

Replace roof at meal preparation site 





15,000 


>00 


Mission Language and Vocational 
School, Inc. 

Replace light fixtures, heating system, and 
floor tiles at job training center 


50,000 


56,500 


6,500 


Mission Neighborhood Centers 

Install mechanical ventilation, expand 
children's todet in childcare facility 





68,000 


68,000 


Potrero Hill Neighborhood House 
Replace heating system, windows, and 
skylights at neighborhood center 





120,000 


120.000 


Sage Project 

Provide accessibility improvements for 
building that serves women and girls 
dealing with and moving away from 
prostitution 





100,000 


100,000 


Southwest Community Corporation 
Repair dry rot. plumbing, and install new 
signage at community facility 





50,000 


50,000 



Board of Supervisors 
Bi dget Analyst 

16 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Program 


FY 1999- 

2000 
Budget 


Proposed 
FY 2000- 

2001 
Budget 


Increase/ 
(Decrease) 

in FY 

2000-2001 

Budget 


St. Boniface Neighborhood Center 

Rehabilitation of neighborhood shelter and 
drop in center to provide ADA accessibility 


$0 


$175,000 


$175,000 


Visitacion Valley Community Center 

Replace roof and upgrade alarm system at 
66 Raymond Avenue 





12,000 


12.000 


Visitacion Valley Community Center 

Install linoleum flooring in senior dining 
room at 50 Raymond Avenue 





30.000 


30,000 


YMCAofSF 

Install new flooring in social hall used by 
seniors, adults, and youth 





15,000 


15,000 


Total New Funding in 
FY 2000-2001 budget 






$1,096,500 


Projects funded in FY 1999-2000 and not 
funded in FY 2000-2001 


$786,080 





($786,080) 


Total 


$1,032,180 


$1,342,600 


$310,420 



The Budget Analyst has reviewed details of the summarj' budgets noted 
above, and has found that the requested amounts are reasonable. 

Comment 

According to Mr. Pon, cost estimates for the capital improvement projects 
were developed by an architectural consultant and were reviewed by MOCD. 
All projects will be subject to the competitive selection of contractors. 



Recommendations 

1. Approve funding of $246,100 of the requested FY 2000-2001 CDBG 
amount of $1,342,600 for continuing programs. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

17 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

2. Approval of requested funding of $1,096,500 for 14 new projects and one 
expanded project to be funded from the FY JlOOO-2001 CDBG program 
funds is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

18 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Section VII: Other Rehabilitation Program Pools - $1.490.000 



The MOCD proposes to allocate $1,490,000 to two Program Pools in FY 2000- 
2001, an increase of $90,000, or a 6.4 percent increase from the FY 1999-2000 
budget allocation of 1,400,000 for the two Program Pools. 

Descriptions of the proposed Program Pools with increased funding is as 
follows: 



Program 


FY 1999- 

2000 
Budget 


Proposed 

FY 2000- 

2001 
Budget 


Increase/ 

(Decrease) 

in FY 2000- 

2001 

Budget 


Facility Emergency Relief Pool 

Provided emergency capital funding to 
existing facilities that encounter 
unforeseen code problems during 
construction 


$1,000,000 


SI. 090.000 


$90,000 


Disability Access Upgrade Pool 

Provides funds to currently funded 
CDBG and Emergency Shelter Grant 
(ESG) agencies to bring then agencies 
into compliance with Americans with 
Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements 


400,000 


400,000 





Total 


$1,400,000 


$1,490,000 


$90,000 



Comments 

1. According to Mr. Pon, the Facility Emergency Relief Pool provides funds to 
existing and new facility construction and renovation projects, noted in 
Sections V and VI above, that encounter unforeseen code or construction 
problems during the construction or renovation of the facility. Funds are also 
available to cover certain predevelopment expenses associated with the 
development of a new center. 

2. MOCD has proposed an additional $90,000 in Emergency Relief Pool 
monies to fund the Lavender Youth Recreation and Information Center. Mr. 
Pon states that the Lavender Youth Recreation Center had not yet received 
Planning Commission approval at the time of the CDBG grant application. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Anal-s si 

19 



Memo to Finance and Labor Commit 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

The Budget Analyst recommends that 890,000 be placed on reserve, pending 
submission of a program plan and budget details. 

Recommendations 

1. Place $90,000 of the requested 81,490,000 in FY J< -2001 CDBG funding 

on reserve, as noted in Comment No. 2 above. 

2. Approve $1,400,000 of the requested $1,490,000 in FY 2000-2001 CDBG 
funding. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

20 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Section VIII: Public Services Program - S4.972.779 

The MOCD proposes to fund 80 Public Service programs in the amount of 
$4,972,779 in 2000, a decrease of $151,010, or 2.9 percent, from the 1999 
budget allocation of $5,123,789, which funded 77 Public Service programs. 

Descriptions of the proposed Public Service Programs with new or increased 
funding are as follows: 



Program 


FY 1999- 

2000 
Budget 


Proposed 
FY 2000- 

2001 
Budget 


Increase/ 
(Decrease) 

in FY 

2000-2001 

Budget 


Arab Cultural Center 

Provides youth development services, 
particularly to Arab American girls 


$0 


$30,000 


$30,000 


Chinese Newcomers Service Center 

Provides bilingual job preparation, 
information, placement and retention 
services for immigrants 





50,000 


50,000 


Central American Resource Center 

Provides work permit application assistance 
to low-income Latino immigrants 


28,468 


32,000 


3,532 


Milestones Human Services, Inc. 

Provides job retention services, including 
mentoring services to persons coming out of 
the criminal justice system 





44,557 


44,557 


Renaissance Parents of Success 

Provides job placement, job readiness and 
comprehensive vocational computer 
education 


133,042 


133,489 


447 



Board of Si pf.rvisors 
Budget Analyst 

21 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Program 


FY 1999- 

2000 
Budget 


Proposed 
FY 2000- 

2001 
Budget 


Increase 

in FY 

2000-2001 

Budget 


San Francisco League of Urban 
Gardeners 

Provides housing counseling services, 
including case management, prevention of 
Section 8 conversions and tenant education 





$33,000 


$33,000 


Toolworks 

Provides a new training program for 

individuals with disabilities 





46.77D 


46,770 


Total new funding in FY 2000-2001 
budget 






$208,306 


1999-2000 Programs not funded 
in 2000-2001 






(359,316) 


Total 


$161,510 1 $369,816 


($151,010) 



The Budget Analyst has reviewed details of the summary budgets noted 
above, and has found that the requested amount is reasonable. 

Recommendations 

1. Approve funding of $4,764,473 out of the requested FY 2000-2001 CDBG 
amount of $4,972,779 for continuing programs. 

2. Approval of funding for new programs and increased funding for existing 
programs in the amount of $208,306 a policy matter for the Board of 

Supervisors. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

:: 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Section DC: Economic Development Program - $1.108.034 

The MOCD proposes to allocate $1,108,034 to fund 12 Economic Development 
Programs, a decrease of $188,000, or 14.5 percent, from the FY 1999-2000 
budget allocation of $1,296,034. 

Descriptions of the proposed Economic Development Programs that are new 
or are receiving increased funding is as follows: 



Program 


FY 1999- 

2000 
Budget 


Proposed 
FY 2000- 

2001 
Budget 


Increase in 
FY 2000- 

2001 
Budget 


Arriba Juntos 

Provide home care training program 
targeting paraprofessional health 
services industry, particularly those 
serving the home bound and elderly 





830,000 


$30,000 


Mayors Economic Development 
Pool 

Pool for to provide loan technical 
assistance for small business receiving 
loans through other organizations 
listed in this chart 





100,000 


100,000 


Mission Economic Development 
Association 

Provide loan packaging and technical 
assistance for small businesses, women 
and/or minority-owned businesses 


241,734 


266,734 


25,000 


Northeast Community Federal 
Credit Union 

Provide neighborhood banking services 
in the Tenderloin 





50,000 


50.000 


Total New Funding in 
FY 2000-2001 






205,000 


Decreased project funding in 2000-2001 
from 1999-2000 levels 






(393,000) 


Total Increased (Decreased) Fundin 


% 




($188,000) 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

23 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

The Budget Analyst has reviewed detail- of the summary budgets noted above, 
and has found that the requested amount is reasonable. 

Comment 

MOCD has proposed $100,000 for the Mayor's Office of Economic Development 
to fund technical assistance services for small businesses in the Chinese 
community. The Budget Analyst recommends that this $100,000 be placed on 
reserve, pending submission of a program plan and luidget detail-. 

Recommendations 

1. Approve funding of $803,034 of the requested FY 2000-2001 CDBG amount 
of $1,108,034 for continuing programs. 

2. Place $100,000 of the requested S in FY 2000-2001 CDBG funding 
on reserve, as noted in the Comment above 

3. Approval of funding for new programs and increased funding for existing 
programs in the amount of $205,000 a policy matter for the Board of 

Supervisors. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

24 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Section X: Microenterprise Assistance - $675,792 

The MOCD proposes to allocate $675,792 to fund seven Microenterprise 
Assistance Programs, a decrease of $121,808, or 15.2 percent, from the 1999 
budget allocation of $797,600. 

Descriptions of the proposed Microenterprise programs that are new or are 
receiving increased funding are as follows: 



Program 


FY 1999- 

2000 
Budget 


Proposed 
FY 2000- 

2001 
Budget 


Increase in j 
FY 2000- 

2001 
Budget 


CAHEED 

Provide family child care 
entrepreneurship training, 
particularly to TANF and CalWORKs 
individuals 





58,192 


58.192 


Decreased project funding in FY 2000- 
2001 from FY 1999-2000 levels 


$180,000 




(180,000) 


Total Increased (Decreased) Funding 


($121,808) 



The Budget Analyst has reviewed details of the summary budgets noted above, 
and has found that the requested amount is reasonable. 

Recommendations 

1. Approve funding of $617,600 out of the requested FA* 2000-2001 CDBG 
amount of $675,792 for continuing programs. 

2. Approval of funding for new programs and increased funding for existing 
programs in the amount of $58,192 a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget An m ^ st 

25 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Section XI: Planning and Capacity Building - S812.415 

The MOCD proposes to fund 18 agencies in the amount or $812,415 in FY 
2000-2001, an increase of $37,055 or 4.8 percent, from the FY' 1999-2000 
budget allocation of $775,360, which funded 12 agencies. This category 
provides funds to agencies to support short- and long-range planning and 
development. 

Descriptions of the proposed Planning and Capacity Building programs with 
new or increased funding are as follows: 



Program 


FY 1999- 

2000 
Budget 


Proposed 
FY 2000- 

2001 
Budget 


Increase/ 

(Decrea-f > 

in FY 2000- 

2001 

Bud net 


African Immigrant and Refugee 
Resource Center 

Provides training for executive directors and 
boards of directors of community-based 
organizations in capacity building and 
strategic planning 




5 000 


5 000 


Booker T. Washington Community 

Service Center 

Funds would be expended on a feasibility 

study to determine what type of facility 

would best serve the needs of the 

community. 





15.000 


15,000 


Ch i n ese for Affi r motive Action 
Funds would be expended on an assessment 
and evaluation of current employment 
services, and on a planning process, 
resulting in improved services. 





20.000 


20,000 


Friends of St. Francis Childeare Center 

Funds would be expended on a strategic 
planning process and training for the board 
of directors of childeare center. 





10.000 


10.000 


Geneva Valley Development Corporation 
Funds would be expended on strategic 
planning and board training for lead 
organization of a collaborative multi-service 
center. 





20.000 


20.000 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

26 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Program 


1999 
Budget 


Proposed 

2000 

Budget 


Increase 
in 2000 
Budget 


Hearing Society for the Bay Area 

Would conduct needs assessment of deaf and 
hard of hearing San Franciscans 


SO 


$15,000 


$15,000 


Hearth Homes 

Would conduct feasibility study of 
developing a system for persons with 
physical disabilities to access affordable 
housing 





12,000 


12,000 


Juma Ventures 

Funds would be expended on several 
business feasibility studies which would be 
used to launch new business ventures, 
employing low-income youth. 





$19,500 


19,500 


Korean American Association of S.F. 
Bay Area 

Funds would be expended on a feasibility 
study and action plan for the renovation of a 
community center. 





30,000 


30,000 


MOCD Planning and Capacity Building 
Pool 

Provides support for planning MOCD 
projects and capacity building 


284,386 


327,967 


43,581 


MOH Planning and Capacity Building 
Pool 

Provides support for planning MOH projects 
and capacity building 


50,000 


50,000 






Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

27 



Memo to Finance and Labor Commit' 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Program 


FY 

1999- 

2000 

Budget 


Proposed 
FY 2000- 

2001 
Budget 


Increase/ 
(Decrease) 

in FY 

2000-2001 

Budget 


South of Market Childcare 

Would undertake assessment and 
establishment of ongoing strategic planning 
process, including staff and board training to 
build organizational capacity 


(0 


■ ooo 


i 000 


Lyon-Martin Women's Health Services 
Funds would be expended on strategic 
planning and board/staff development for 
women's heath services organization. 





5,000 


5,000 


Volunteer Center of San Francisco 

Provides volunteer referrals to nonprofit 
agencies 





"00 


i00 


Women's Initiative for Self-Employment 
Would undertake planning and testing 
process to evaluate impact of Spanish- 
language training and technical assistance 
services to Latina entrepreneurs 





21 150 


21 1 


Young Community Developers 

Would undertake a strategic planning 
process, including board/staff training and 
drafting a fundraising and development plan 





15,000 


15,000 


Total new and increased funding 
in FY 2000-2001 






$281,531 


Programs funded in FY 1999-2000 not 
funded or reduced in FY" 2000-2001 







170) 


Total 


$775,360 I $812,415 


$37,055 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

28 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Comments 

1. According to Ms. Anna Yee of MOCD, funding for planning and capacity 
building is provided to community organizations on a one-time basis for one 
of two purposes: (a) to assist with internal organizational development, such 
as training staff in developing strategic plans, or (b) to assist in developing an 
assessment or feasibility study for new types of projects. MOCD is 
recommending new or increased funding for the organizations noted above in 
FY 2000-2001 for such purposes. 

2. Ms. Yee states the MOCD and MOH Planning and Capacity Building 
Program Pools would provide funds during the fiscal year for staff training 
and development to organizations that did not apply for such funds in the 
CDBG grant application process. According to Ms. Yee, as of February 1, 
2000, MOCD has expended $250,173 of the FY' 1999-2000 allocation of 
$284,386. Ms. Yee states that MOCD expects to expend the remaining 
balance of $34,213 ($284,386 less $250,1783) prior to June 30, 2000. As noted 
above, MOCD has requested $327,967 in FY 2000-2001 for the MOCD 
Planning Pool, which is $43,581 or 15 percent more, than budgeted in FY 
1999-2000. The Budget Analyst recommends that $43,581 of the requested 
FY 2000-2001 allocation of $327,967 be placed on reserve, pending 
submission of an expenditure plan and budget details. 

The requested allocation for the MOH Planning and Capacity Building 
Program Pool in FY 2000-2001 is $50,000, which is unchanged from the prior 
year allocation. 

3. Ms. Yee states that HUD requires a one-year and five-year plan for the 
Emergency Shelter Grant, CDBG, Home Investment Partnership, and 
Housing Options for People With AIDS programs. Consolidated Planning 
and Capacity Building Program Pool funds are used to pay for staff time to 
prepare the required plan. The requested FY 2000-2001 allocation of $96,498 
is $104,976 or 52 percent less than the FY 1999-2000 allocation of $201,474 
because MOCD is preparing a one-year rather than a five-year report. 

Recommendations 

1. Place $43,581 of the requested FY* 2000-2001 MOCD Planning and 
Capacity Building Pool allocation of $327,967 on reserve, as noted in 
Comment No. 2. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget analyst 

29 



Memo to Finance and Labor Commit 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

2. Approve funding of $530,884 of the requested FY 2000-2001 CDBG amount 
of $812,415 for continuing programs, including MOH, MOCD, and 
Consolidated Planning Pools. 

3. Approval of funding for new or increased programs in the amount of 
$281,531 is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

30 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Section XII: Program Administration - $4,416.605 



The MOCD proposes to fund five City Departments in the amount of 
$4,416,605 for Program Administration in FY 2000-2001, an increase of 
$284,523 or 6.9 percent, from the FY 1999-2000 Program Administration 
budget allocation of $4,132,082. The five City Departments include the 
Controller's Office, the Mayor's Office of Community Development, the 
Mayor's Office of Housing, the City Attorney's Office, and the Human Rights 
Commission. The summary budget for Program Administration is as follows: 







Proposed 


Increase/ 


Department 


FY 1999- 


FY 2000- 


(Decrease) 




2000 


2001 


in FY 




Budget 


Budget 


2000-2001 
Budget 


Controller 








Audit and Indirect Costs 


8124,015 


$60,000 


($64,015) 


Audit and Indirect Costs (MOH) 





60.000 


60.000 


Subtotal 


$124,015 


$120,000 


($4,015) 


Mayor's Office of Community 








Development 








Administration 


2,291,132 


2,421,582 


130,450 


Enterprise Community Program 








(salary and personnel costs for 








0.75 FTE) 


126,962 


54,671 


(72,291) 


Environmental Review 


15,000 


15,000 





Office of Homeless (salary and 








personnel costs for 1.0 FTE) 


90,420 


54,744 


(35,676) 


Disability Council 


10.000 


10.000 





Subtotal 


82,533,514 


$2,555,997 


$22,483 


Mayor's Office of Housing 








Affordable Housing Bonds 








(salary and personnel costs for 








1.2 FTEs) 





129,329 


129,329 


Administration 


1,159,553 


1.101,038 


(58,515) 


Environmental Review 


15,000 


15,000 





Lead (salary and personnel costs 








for 2.45 FTEs) 





185.241 


185.241 


Subtotal 


$1,174,553 


SI. 430,608 


$256,055 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

31 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Department 


FY 1999- 

2000 
Budget 


Proposed 
FY 2000- 

2001 
Budget 


Increase/ 
(Decrease) 

in FT 

2000-2001 

Budget 


Citv Attorney's Office 

MOCD 
MOH 

Subtotal 

Human Riehts Commission 


50,000 



$50,000 

'000 


000 

25.000 

S50.000 

260,000 


000) 
25.000 

10,000 


Total Program Administration 


$4,132,082 


$4,416,605 


S2M..-.2:; 



Comments 

1. The FY 2000-2001 MOCD/MOH budget, which includes both M( ><"I> MOH 
administration and program management costs, contains 72 budgeted full 
time equivalent (FTE) positions, which is unchanged from the l'l FTEa 
budgeted in FY 1999-2000. 

2. For FY' 2000-2001 MOCD is proposing a budget of $2,036,482 for salary 
and related personnel costs for 26.9 FTEs, out of a total MOCD 
administration budget of $2,421,582. For FY 2000-2001, MOH is proposing a 
budget of $916,794 for salary and related personnel costs for 12.65 FTEs, out 
of a total MOH administration budget of SI. 101,038. MOCD and MOH 
administration budgets therefore contain a total of 39.55 FTEs in FT 2000- 
2001. Currently, MOCD has one vacant Special Assistant XII position. MOH 
has no vacant positions. 

3. In addition to the 39.55 FTEs noted in Comment No. 2. the FY 2000-2001 
Program Administration budget includes 5.4 FTES in other MOCD and MOH 
administration programs (Enterprise Community, Office of Homelessness, 
Affordable Housing Bonds, and MOH Lead programs), for a total of 44.95 
FTEs 1 (39.55 plus 5.4). 

4. The proposed FY' 2000-2001 allocations for the MOCD Enterprise 
Community Program (0.75 FTE) and the Office of Homeless (1.0 FTE) are 
reduced from the FY' 1999-2000 allocations. The Enterprise Community 
Program was allocated 2.0 FTEs in FY' 1999-2000. The Office of Homeless 



The remaining 27.05 FTEs (72 less 44.95) are distributed among the various CDBG MOCD "MOH 
programs discussed in the program sections of this report. 

Board of Si/pervisors 
Budget Analyst 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

was allocated 1.0 FTE in FY 1999-2000 for a Homeless Coordinator, budgeted 
at $93,216 annually. The proposed FY 2000-2001 budget for the Office of 
Homeless contains 1.0 FTE Special Assistant IX, budgeted at $54,744 
annually. 

5. In FY 2000-2001, MOH has allocated existing FTEs to the Affordable 
Housing Bonds and MOH Lead programs that were not allocated in FY 1999- 
2000, as follows: 

• Allocation of $129,329 to fund 1.2 existing FTEs for the MOH Affordable 
Housing Bonds program. Mr. Roger Sanders of MOCD states that MOH 
is currently using staff time to administer Affordable Housing Bonds 2 
projects and, additionally, expects to request appropriation of 
approximately $40,000,000 in Affordable Housing Bonds proceeds in FY 
2000-2001. 

• Allocation of $185,241 to the MOH Lead program to fund 2.45 existing 
FTEs. Allocation of the 2.45 FTEs was approved by the Board of 
Supervisors in March of 1999, to provide in-kind matching funds for a 
$3,000,000 grant provided by HUD to the City for the Lead Hazard 
Reduction and Primary Prevention Program (File 99-0445). 

6. In developing personnel costs associated with MOH program activities 
(MOH Lead program and Affordable Housing Bonds program), MOH did not 
include calculations for salary savings (5 percent budget reduction) or 
negotiated salary increases (4 percent budget increase). Therefore, MOH 
budgeted personnel costs should be reduced by a net amount of $3,146. 

7. MOCD has budgeted $260,000 in FY 2000-2001 for the Human Rights 
Commission, which is a $10,000 increase from the FY 1999-2000 budget of 
$250,000. According to Mr. Sanders, the MOCD has not identified use of the 
proposed $10,000 increase. The Budget Analyst recommends that the 
proposed allocation be reduced by $10,000 from $260,000 to $250,000. The 
$10,000 amount to be reduced can be reserved for other CDBG eligible 
activities. 



: Mr. Sanders states that Affordable Housing Bond proceeds do not provide an allocation for administrative 
costs of the Bond programs. 

Board of Supervisors 
Bidget Analyst 

37 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committer 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Recommendations 

1. Reduce the Program Administration allocation by $13,146 ($3,146 plus 
$10,000), as noted in Comments 6 and 7, and reserve $13,146 for other CDBG 
eligible activities. 

2. Approve $4,403,459 for the FY 2000-2001 Program Administration 
allocation. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

34 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Section XIII: Program Income-Funded Activities- S8, 459. 275 

HUD requires that anticipated CDBG-related program income to MOCD, 
MOH, and the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (SFRA) be allocated 
through the submission of an annual application for CDBG funds. MOCD, 
MOH, and SFRA anticipate program income in the amount of $8,459,275 in 
FY 2000-2001 from the repayment of economic development loans, housing 
rehabilitation loans, and land sales and rental income. 

The $8,459,275 in program income would be expended as follows: 



Program 


Proposed FY 
2000-2001 Budget 


MOCD/MOH 

Section 10S Loan Repayment 

Loans exceeding $100,000 to businesses identified 
as consistent with and supporting specific 
economic development initiatives 

Section 108 Daycare Repayment 

Provides loans specified for childcare facilities 

Capital Projects 

Payment of predevelopment and other costs 
associated with capital projects 

Microenterprise Loan Program 

Provides loans up to $10,000 to support 
Microenterprises and self-employment enterprises 

Small Business Loan 

Provides loans up to S 100,000 to existing small 
Businesses 

Community Housing Rehabilitation Revolving 
Loan Program 

Provides financial and technical assistance to 
Eligible low-income homeowners 


$2,478,275 
250,000 

1,350,000 

250,000 

750,000 

-1(1,000 



Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

35 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Program 



Proposed FY 2000- 
2001 Budget 



SFRA 



Central Relocation Services 
Provides relocation services to displ 
Households 

Low Income Housing 

Provides funds for low-income housing activities 

General Program Administration 

Economic Development 

Provides funds for economic d< I h as 

Job training, in low income an 

Planning India Basin 

Provides funds for planning • the India 

Basis area 

Planning Mid Market 

Provides funds for planning efforts for the 

Market area 



100,000 

1.048,000 
i 000 

606,000 

250,000 

.000 



Total Funding 



S8.459.275 



Comments 

1. In fi' 1999-2000 the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (SFRA) had 
significant one-time expenses related to the debt service for Verba Buena 
Center, including payment of Tax Allocation Bonds and Verba Buena Garden 
Bonds. Such debt service, totaling $36,303,000. was funded from the SFRA 
land sales and rental income. 

2. The attached memorandum, provided by Ms. Pamela David of MOCD. 
explains the proposed new Capital Projects Pool, totaling SI. 350. 000. This 
pool of money would provide funds (a) for pre-development costs for non- 
housing capital projects, such as community centers. 0b) assistance to 
nonprofit organizations in obtaining building space, and (c) American with 
Disabilities Act improvements to Brooks Hall. The Budget Analyst 
recommends that $300,000 of the requested $1,300,000 Capital Projects Pool 
for the Brooks Hall improvements be placed on reserve, pending submission 



Board of Supervisors 
Bidget Analyst 

36 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 12, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

of budget details. Approval of this new pool of money, including monies to be 
placed on reserve, is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 

Recommendations 

1. Reserve $300,000 for the Brooks Hall improvements, as noted in Comment. 
No. 2. 

2. Approval of $1,350,000 for the new Capital Projects Pool is a policy matter 
for the Board of Supervisors. 

3. Approve $7,109,275 ($8,459,275 of proposed Program Income-Funded 
Activities, less $1,350,000) for the expenditure of MOCD, MOH, and SFRA 
program income, as recommended by MOCD. 



Board of Supervisors 
Bi dget Analyst 

37 



4-06-2000 3 ; 1 0PM 



prom mayor's homeless OFC 4is 2S2 3118 Attachment 

Pape 1 of 4 



MAYOR'S OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 

CTTY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 




WILLre LEWIS BROWN, JR. 

MAYOR 

PAMELA H. DAVID 
DIRECTOR 



MEMORANDUM 



TO: 
FROM: 
DATE: 
RE: 



Severin Campbell, Bucket Analyst 

Para David, MOClf 

April 6, 2000 

Capital Projects/MOCD Line Item 




This is a new use of funds being established in this year's CDBG budget. It addresses two 
pressing problems, and a third long-standing committment. 

1 . Need for pre-development funding for capital projects. 

We are engaged in numerous projects with the Mayor's Office of Housing and the 
Redevelopment Agency, in which we are contributing to non-housing community space 
attached to an affordable housing project The financing of affordable housing allows for 
pre-development costs (design, engineering, planning, etc ) However, we have never 
established a similar pool of funds to partner with our New and Existing Facility monies 
(we cannot use those funds for "soft" costs). 

For example, in housing projects in which we are (thru CDBG and/or our Section 108 
Child Care Facility Loan Fund) helping construct child care centers, the developers and 
child care providers have no source of funds to plan out the child care The developers 
can not use affordable housing funds for non-housing portions of the development, and 
neither the developers nor child care providers have had other avenues of support for 
these necessary activities There are also stand-alone community facility projects which 
require pre-development funds to increase their eventual effectiveness 

Thus, this S1.35M line item provides, for the first rime, an allowable funding stream within 
our CDBG program to cover such necessary expenditures and activities. We believe the 
availability of these funds will expedite many of our capital projects, and result in better 
design and eventual use of the various community facilities in which we invest capital 
dollars. We believe we require no less than SI 50.000 per year for this, but may require, in 
fact, considerably more. 

25 Van Ness Avrre, Suite 700 • San Francisco. Caiform 94102 .(415) 2533100 FAX (415)2524110 

TDD (415) 252-3107 



38 



4-06-2000 3:11PM FROM MAYOR'S HOMELESS OFC d IB 252 3118 Attachment 

Page 2 of 4 



Severin Campbell 
April 6, 2000 



Addressing the space/rent crisis facing community-based non-profit organizations 



The huge shifts in S.F.'s commercial real estate market are heavily impacting many of the 
non-profit organizations with whom we partner to carry out essential community 
development activities. The availability of commercial space has dramatically decreased, 
and market rate rents correspondingly have increased. Many of the community-based 
non-profits funded by MOCD have been located in the mid-Market, SOMA and Mission 
neighborhoods BECAUSE these districts afforded reasonable space and rent structures. 
Many of the organizations have historically enjoyed long-term leases, and have been 
paying relatively low rents (from less than Sl/sf to S3/sf). Yet, it is these neighborhoods 
in which the commercial rental situation has most changed. 

A recent survey conducted by MOCD revealed that over 75% of the grantees responding 
lease their space, and have leases expiring within 12 to 36 months. In addition, more than 
75% of those do not expect to be able to continue to lease their space without significant 
rent increases, if allowed to stay at all. Rents in the SOMA and mid-Market Street areas, 
pushed by the explosion ofdot.com companies, have now reached as high as S85/sf, rates 
completely out of reach of even the most established, largest and successful non-profits, 
much less smaller community groups. 

Entire buildings, which have, for many years, housed numbers of non-profits, are being 
sold to dot.com companies and/or being leased out to this industry sector as old leases 
expire. 965 Mission Street, 1663 Mission Street, the Bay View Bank building — these are 
just a few examples of buildings in which numerous non-profits, have lost or will shortly 
be losing their space. 

MOCD has been providing leadership on this issue for the past three months, convening 
other City agencies, as well as the philanthropic and business communities to come 
together and begin to strategize various solutions. We have done some very preliminary 
research, and are helping shape further more detailed studies, engaging the non-profits 
themselves in the process as well. Most importantly, we are assisting in providing a 
framework for solutions, as there is not a "one size fits all" approach that will work. 

Many organizations may be able to be clustered within one or several buildings in the mid- 
Market area. But others have to remain in the communities that they are serving, i.e. the 
South of Market, the Mission, the Bayview Some organizations need confidential sites, 
some need open space attached. Nearly all have to be easily accessible by public transit 
Community-based organizations need assistance in identifying their needs, and the right 
direction for them to pursue. Some may be able to buy the buildings they're in; others 
may be developing consortiums to purchase property. Still others may be looking to and 
working with the philanthropic sector to develop non-profit space that could be leased at 
below-market rates. 



39 



4-06-2000 3:11PM FROM MAYOR'S HOMELESS OFC 415 252 3116 Attachment 

Page U of A 



Severin Campbell 
April 6, 2000 



This line item establishes a flexible source of funds to help the non-profits address these 
varied issues, and provide support as necessary It would be irresponsible for MOCD to 
not develop a fluid, readily available and flexible funding stream to assist in addressing this 
important issue. Our goal should always be to maximize the dollars going into programs, 
and not see public or philanthropic dollars being eaten up by hugely escalating operating 
costs. We believe it is prudent to have at least SI million available for this project, and 
have budgeted accordingly. 



Long-standing commitment to Brooks Hall Reuse Plan 

The Mayor has requested that we reserve in our budget $300,000 for ADA improvements 
at Brooks Hall Brooks Hall is being transformed into the Mayor's Center for Advanced 
Technology, and requires significant ADA upgrades We are attaching a brief description 
of the project and use of funds, prepared by DTIS 



40 



4-06-2000 3:11PM FROM MAYOR S HOMELESS OFC 415 252 3118 Attachment 

Page h ot 4 

City and County of San Francisco Department of Telecommunications 

and Information Services 

Liza M. Lowery Deru'se M. Brady 

Director Deputy Director 




Telephone: (415)554-0801 



Policy, Planning and Compliance Division 
Telephone: (415)554-4443 Fax: (415)554-4731 



The Mayor's Center for Advanced Technology 
(MCAT) 



Budget information for FY 1999/2000: 

Project Summary: The Mayor's Center for Advanced Technology (MCAT) is approximately a 30,000 square 
foot technology center to be located in Brooks Hall. The MCAT will provide access to multimedia and 
information technology including a video production facility, and provide technical training and support. The 
requested funds will be used for ADA related upgrades per current code requirements. 



Budget information: $ 300,000.00 

Modify existing rest room facility to meet current ADA requirements: 
$ 125,000.00 

Replace non-compliant escalator with code compliant elevator to provide public access to MCAT. 
$ 175,000.00 



875 Stevenson Street, Fifth Floor • San Franci&co, CA 94103-0948 
Office: (415)554-0800 • Facsimile: (415)554-4733 



41 



Attachment II 
Page 1 of 8 















a 


"3 






















1 








Ul 


0, 



o c 
oo o 

— o 



» " - 



2 => 

— a 
o o 



ooo — o «-» — » **> c 
30 o o .o o oo -- 



5 2 



:*: O r- O 



- O « - 



— ^ r- « r« M 



oo — o «^ — C "■ c 

C C C O 00 M O " O 

fsaor-OOW'^r-o 



— -r x — c 



J> 8 £ 

^ © c 



2 5 






§p «-i o o 
c — o r 

- o »i 
-' C l~-' -T O 

.1 «-< — 

— 



P =. - a 



5 -? 






i e w «•» 5 2 5t 
1 1 51 ; c S 5 « 



> u "O a a 

2 = oo c 

- £ 5 -H • wi 

H 9- - u 






_2 o 



yj t/i 



Attachment II 
Page~r~oF~8 



— = = = 



*• o c>" d o t' o" o" — " ~" 









~o~ooooo 



— . Oi —. —. —. <n o o =. c 5 o 2 o 2_ </| ~_ in q o c o = = o o in 5_ => = 



5 3 5 5 

5 5 



o ■/-> ,c r- — 



o o o 



o o o a 



o o o c o o o 
o o c o o o o 



o o o 



3 2 



55 25 5 52 c ° 



o o 



-T -T O 



2£ 



c o 
3 g 2 

< S 



=o — 



iK^s^ = 



: j; -jj ; 






u .2 c 

III 






= v. t/i z 

<; n - 
•_ c O ■— 



= '- 
Z Z > 



. "• Z r- 



— < 



c o z 
' U 



> < < < < . 



3 a 



£«•£»•= 






z = 1 I I £ 4 

£ — '-» =0 C = •" 

_ C u ■ a 3 _ 

2 a. S « vi n cn 



> > > 1 

I = c « 
■ 3 i S 



Attachment I '. 
Page 3 of 8 



= o £ § 



> 

* O 

■a <= 



© © © o » 1 
o ©■ o *n in c 



r o = i- oc - 

©TOeOO«">'-l©00 



e c ^i -r 



^r-^«^^i*Nf*lOO'^ 



O © © rj oo © o 

O 5 <-. 1 O C 3 

O — . 5°. ». "* — . ~. 

■C O* <*m' <^* 30 ©' C* 



— — «-. c 



£ <n o o g 

00 V, o o © 

-T w-i O © O. 

»-r oo o* o «-r 



V. © © 

"1 = — 
— ' -" t-" 



<■*©©©© 



VI o O 

§i «-> o o 
' o o 



-T Tl V 



— — v. c 



.= s 



u = = ° t - 



••2 £ 



£ 4 c 



ceo -= 



5 £ 

B. O 



c -^ ^i 5 



= -= .= 5 



i »r a 



5« ": 



u 3 g e c o o .H 









3 I = > £ 



H ? - — - 



- ~ ~ x — 






s z z ■=< = 



CO £■ 



<1 < < 25 B L 



oooooo£oJ!-iSSSzzis£ce>>S 



S o S 



>- z >• 



s l : s s 



Attachment II 
Page 4 of 8 



=- e 
U — 



trS = g - ■ 
S§s S "i 



o o o 5 



O C — O T O 



O — O O O 






o o o o 
o o o o o 
o o o o o 



o o o o c 

o o c o c 
o o o o o 



o o = c 



o © o o o — c 

c o o o «i c- o 



5 c 



~ s > 






<■'_ — — 



^5's f s J = 



2 < 

£ - 






„ -r. <" :-> g «■ Ji 

= -5-m= a g "= 2 o is o •■= .e _ 5 E 
E ■ "5 -S e 3 I «» "1 " r ~ = = 3 ^ .= 



ill 



£ < < 



= •/•;_ 

£ a c o 



9 o o s ■= £ ~ 



I - 



•J > 



u - i 






- - V- S \A - 7. j; 



3 J 5 

III 



> 
_ i 
\J — l/> X/i 



a 3 

3 5 



g < u 
c — — 



UU2 

II & 



Attachment II 
Page~T~oF~S 



o o 
o r- 
O. r-_ 



2 = 3 






8.8 i 






C-T COOOr-oOC 

-. — : "1 - 

O Nttc 

»-* r- o r- ~ r r-T'-j — 



SOOQ'O-OO-OCTCOQO^OOO 
© O 5* C -r - ■$ r*4 O. 

O* O* C r-" =c" r»- yr. — " — * ri »' in c" C* o o" »n o" 

Or- c-T-T'^'^ 0»~*r- -or-mO©^*"-* — 



— - -r — 



£ 


> 

50 Si 




i 

E 


c o K 

s e- s 


ill 
— — z 
if s 




1 


g .2 - e 


— 


7 " 


| 


,e 


lis 

1 i c 


"EL z — 




5 


2 5 " z 





£■ — 


E 

u 


^3 






c 


5 v. - ^ 


c 




= 


O ° — 

ill 

c = ^ 

rj 3 


3 s 2 

^ — > 


■2 




si - - _ 

1^ = 1 

21n 



- I >■ 1 | 2 -I - I I 2 I 
?ei^<? RES ci£ e" a 



~ C U; 



■= S >• o - 



! *un^ i 









Attachment II 
Page 5 oT o 



o o o o o 
o o o o o 



«gog„ 



o o 
c c 

o o 



oooooooooooo 



= = 00000 



be ^ ^ 



000000 = 



= 000 
0000 



o = = = o 

o = = o = 



= c* o 



O OOOO 



= = = = = 



OOOO 
OOOO 

OOOO 



OOOO 
OOOO 



o 0000000 
o 0000000 



- .? 

* I 

£ E 

o & 



full 



S Q OQ 



M .- M 



OT » 5 2 

& 6 .= 5. 

si ^ s S 

i o J 3 - < 

5 H O 5 5 a 

= a 



OT £ 

o S 



- 5 



= o 



rs ^ c ot 



• 5 < 5 — 5 — 3 
X a. O C U — OT ot 



- _ c 

£ < 






^l^lJMlJt 



X — 

- < - C > * - 



5 > 

C "3 *^ = 






= 3 



Attachment II 
^age / of 8 



- o — 



o o o o c 



~ = 5 S _ 

3 o^ a, a 

»o; » •a 

« M -a - a 

S^ > 



o — — "i 



o o o 






"-■ — a - 3 

- T 



" = = c 

" | C T = = = = 

-■ o o o o 



c r -t c 
so O r r 



— r-\ o 



— B> 5 -T 

— " O ^ w" 



60 =o < 



•5 lllr §<•,,"» 5 = 

| i § r " I S 'J 5 1 1| 
T S" 5 J> . «3 = t; S "^ , = 



;js| 



Z Z 3 z 

S S 2 35 £ 



is > 



: S 
il I 



- 5 "J "3 



E - s 



_5 II I |t 

3 I » > > ^ | 

9 c _£ i ^ i r 



~ ~ - - c E 



— — = 



- - E = 



t = 



— — -"" .■" J« J" .*" .- rt J" j» >. >. 



Attachment II 
Page 8 of 8 



g - - 
3 ? 2. - 



> _ 
i. - 
•a o si 



S S = 
o cT =' 



"ooooS5o5 






o o o 

o o o 
o o o 



~ 3 cr — c ~ c 






S'= g| 3 | = Sg |.af J 



= — 3 



22222ZMCAM v. w: yj y -r 



City and County of San Francisco atyHaii 

J J 1 Dr. Carlton B. 

Goodlett Place 
San Francisco, CA 

Finance and Labor Committee 94102^689 



Meeting .Minutes 



Members: Supervisors Leland Yee, Sue Merman, Tom Ammiano 
Clerk: Mary Red 



Wednesday, ApriM 9, 2000 10:00 AM City Hall, Room 263 

Regular Meeting 



Members Present: Leland Y. Yee, Sue Bierman, Tom Ammiano. 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

Meeting Convened . „,„ 

APR 2 h 2000 

The meeting convened at 10:07 a.m. SAN FRANCISCO 

PUBLIC LIBRARY 

000328 [Public Financing and Disclosure for Campaigns] 
Supervisor Ammiano 

Ordinance amending Administrative Code by adding Sections 16.549-1 through 16.549.18 to provide for 
public financing of election campaigns and to add Sections 16.550.1 through 16.550-10 to provide for 
increased disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures. 

(Fiscal impact; Adds Sections 16.549-1 through 16.549.18;and Sections 16.550-1 through 16.550.10.) 

2/18/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

4/5/00, AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW TITLE. Heard in Committee. Supervisor Ammiano, 

Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Supervisor Yee; Ginny Vida, Executive Director, Ethics Commission; Naomi Starkman, Ethics 

Commission; Claire Sylvia, Deputy City Attorney; Paul Melbostad, Ethics Commission. In Support: Jim ICnox, California Common 

Cause (CCC); Rebecca Silverberg, Coalition for S. F. Neighborhoods (CSFN); Steven Currier; Marie Harrison; Bud Wilson, Greater West 

Portal, Joan Girardot, President, CSFN; Bill Rangt'eld, CCC; Joan Kingery, CCC. Amendment of the Whole continued to April 12, 2000. 

4/5/00, CONTINUED AS AMENDED. 

4/12/00, CONTINUED. Heard in Committee. Speakers; Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Supervisor Ammiano; Ginny Vida, Executive 

Director, Ethics Commission; Supervisor Bierman. Continued to April 19, 2000. See Files 999685 and 000687 prepared in committee as 

ordinances. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst. Supervisor Ammiano. Amended to delete 

Section 16.550-7; new title. 

AMENDED. 

Ordinance amending Administrative Code by adding Sections 16.549-1 through 16.549.18 to provide for 

public financing of election campaigns and to add Sections 16.550.1 through 16.550-6; 16.550-8 through 

16.550-10, to provide for increased disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures. 

(Fiscal impact; Adds Sections 16.549-1 through 16.549. 18;and Sections 16.550-1 through 16.550-6; 16.550-8 

through 16.550.10.) 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco I I'rini.J at 9:3$ I W on 4AI/00 



Finance and Labor Committet 



Meeting Minute 



April I 'J. 2 111)11 



000685 (Public Financing of Election Campaigns] 

Supervisor Ainmiano 

Ordinance amending the San Francisco Administrative (ode to add Sections 16 549-1 through 16 549-18 to 

provide for public financing of election campaigns. 

(Fiscal Impact; Adds Section 16.549-1 through 16.549-18) 

4. I2.'<)0, PREPAREDIN cuMMli II I \ S AN ORD1NANCI Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; 
Supervisor Ammiano; ( finny Yida. Executive Director. I thi< Supen isor Bierman Sec Pile 000328 

4/12/00. com IN! II) Continued to April 19,2000. 

Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst, Supervisor Ammiano 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



000687 [Public Matching Funds and Disclosure of Campaigns] 
Supervisor Ammiano 

Ordinance amending the Sun Francisco Administrative Code to add Sections 16 549- 1 through 16 549-18 to 
provide for public matching funds to candidates foi local office who arc targeted by large independent 
expenditure campaigns and to add Sections 16 550.1 through 16.550-10 to provide lor inci tire of 

campaign contributions and expenditures 

(Fiscal Impact; Adds Section 16.549-1 through 1(> 549-18 and adds Section 16 550.1 through 16.550-10) 
4/12/00, PREPARED IN COMMITTEI vS AN ORDINANCI Heard in Committee speakers H lodge! Analyst; 

Supervisor Ammiano; Oinnj \ ida, Executivt 
4 12/00, CONTINUI I) Continued to April 19 

Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Ruse, Budget Analyst, Supt rvisor Ammiano Amended to delete 
Section 16 550-7, new title 
\MKNDED. 

Ordinance amending the San Francisco Administrative Code to add Sections 16 54°- 1 through 16 549-18 to 
provide for public matching funds to candidates for local office who are targeted by large independent 
expenditure campaigns and to add Sections 16.550.1 through 16.550-6; 1 6.550-8 through 16.550-10, to 
provide for increased disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures 

(Fiscal Impact; Adds Section 16.549-1 through 16.549-18 and adds Section 16.550.1 through 16.550-6; 

16 550-8 through 16.550-10) 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



Cify and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 9:50 A \f on 4/21/00 



Finance and Labor Committee Meeting Minutes April 19, 2000 



000486 [Grant - Emergency Shelter Grant Program) 
Mayor 

Resolution approving the 2000 Emergency Shelter Grants Program and Expenditure Schedule and authorizing 
the Mayor on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco to apply for, accept, and expend a $890,000 
entitlement under the Emergency Shelter Grants Program from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development. 

3/20/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

4/12/00, CONTINUED. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Pam David, Director, Mayor's Office of 
Community Development; Daryl Higashi, Deputy Director, Mayor's Office of Housing; Supervisor Yee; Supervisor Ammiano; David 
Pearson, Head Start; Dr. Norma Tecson, Filipino American Council; Janelle Pierce, Rosa Park Senior Center; Helen Davenport; Father 
Louis Vitale, St. Boniface Neighborhood Center; Janet Gomes, S. F. Conservation Corp., Donna Bennett, Milestone; Miguel Wooding, 
Eviction Collaborative; Devra Edelman, Haight Ashbury Food Program; Maurice, Bemal Heights Neighborhood Center; LaDawn Law. 
SFUSD, Child Development Program Tami Rice-Mitchell, Charles Drew Center; Aurora Manmack; Betty H ; Lisa Gray, Young 
Community Developers, Clarence Shaw, Housing Conservation and Development Corp.; Barbara Brown; Homer Marshall; Carlos 
Romero, Mission Housing, Grant Din. Asian Neighborhood Design; Teresa Vergel; Dominado Purugganan, World War 1 1 Veteran; 
Colleen Cassity, Juma Ventures; Gary K.; Gay Kaplan; Marian Do„j, Women for Self Employment; Donna Feingold, Edmund Tong, 
Asian, Inc.; Mr. Young; Claudia Viek, Renaissance Entrepreneur Center. Continued to April 19, 2000. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Pam David, Director, Mayor's Office of 
Community Development; Jerry Levine, Vice Chair, C'tizen's Committee on Community Development; Ed 
Tong, Asian Inc.; Enola Maxwell, Potrero Hill Neighborhood House; Supervisor Bierman; Devra Edelman, 
Haight Ashbury Food Program; Helen Heifer, Hospitality House; Linda Robertson, S.F. League of Urban 
Gardeners; Ben, Dorothy Day Community Center; Monique Martin, Director, Ingleside Community Center; 
Janet Gomes, S.F Conservation Corp.; Julie Cavanaugh, Visitacion Valley Community Center; Onille Lester, 
Youth for Service; Lefty Gordon, Ella Hill Hutch Center; Wanda Barnes, Walden House; Luis Flores; 
Supervisor Yee. 
AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW TITLE. 

Resolution approving the 2000 Emergency Shelter Grants Program and Expenditure Schedule and authorizing 
the Mayor on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco to apply for, accept, and expend a 5890,000 
entitlement under the Emergency Shelter Grants Program from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development; placing $1 13,700 on reserve. 
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Bierman 

Absent: 1 - Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco •* Printed at 9.H) Hi on tnim 



Finance and Labor Committee Muting Minutes i/iril I'), 201)1) 



000487 |Crant - HOME Programl 
Mayor 

Resolution authorizing the Mayor of the City and Count) of San Francisco to apply for. accept and administer 
a grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and I rban Development for a total amount not to exceed 
$7,115,000 for the HOME Program authorized under Title II of the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990. 
Public Law Number 101-625, and approving the H( >ME program description -is described in the 2000 action 
plan for San Francisco's consolidated plan. Indirect costs associated w ith the acceptance of these grant funds 
will be paid by Community Development Block Grant funds. 
3/20/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and I ah 

4/12/00, CONTINUED. Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Pam David, Direct flfceof 

Community Development; Daryl Higashi, Deput) Director, ' ano. David 

Pearson, Head Start; Dr Norma Tecson, Filipino American Council. Janelli :pon. lather 

I ouis Vitale, Si Boniface Neighborhood (enter. Janet Gon* I kmna Bennett. Milestone, Miguel wooding. 

Eviclton Collaborative. Devra Edelman, Haighi Ashbur) I ood Progi Bemal Heights Neighborhood ' enter. I aDaun I a». 

SFUSD, Child Development Program Tami Rice-Mitchell, l Voung 

Communit) Developers; Clarence Shaw, Housing i onservation and Developmenl ( 'orp . Barbara Brown; Homer Marshall 
Romero. Mission Housing, Grant Din. Asian Neighborhood IX-sign, Teresa Vergel; Dominado Purugganan. World War 1 1 Veteran. 
Colleen (.'assay, Juma Ventures. ( iary K . ( u> Kaplan. Marian Douh, Women for Sell I mploymcnt. Donna Icingold. I dmund Tnng. 
Asian. Inc.. Mr Young. Claudia Viek, Rem reneur (enter Continued to Apnl 19, 2000 

Heard in Committee Speakers Harve) Rme Budget Analyst, Pam David, Do 

Community Development, Jerry Levine, Vice Chair, Citizen's Commune mi Communit) Development, Ed 

Tong. Asian Inc.; Enola Maxwell, Potrero Hill Neighborhood Hon i 'nan. Devra Edelman, 

Haight Ashhury Food Program, Helen Heifer, Hospitality House, Linda Robertson SI- . ban 

Gardeners. Ben. Dorothy Day Community Center Kionique Martin Director, fngleside < ommunit} Center 

Janet Gomes. S F Conservation Corp.; Julie Cavanaugh, Visitacion Valley Community Center. On die . 

Youth for Service, Lefty Gordon, Ella Hill Hutch Walden House, Luis Fk ■ 

Supervisor )ee 

RECOMMENDED bv the tollov%in K vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Bierman 

Absent: 1 - Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 4 Printed at 9:50 AM on 4 71 00 



Finance and Labor Committee Meeting Minutes April 19, 2000 



000488 [Grant - 2000 CDBG] 
Mayor 

Resolution approving the 2000 Community Development Program authorizing the Mayor, on behalf of the 
City and County of San Francisco, to accept and expend the City's 2000 Community Development Block 
Grant (CDBG) Entitlement from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and program 
income generated by the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency up to S33.734.275 which include indirect 
costs of $160,000; and approving expenditure schedules for recipient departments and agencies for indirect 
costs. 

3/20/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

4/12/00, CONTINUED. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst, Pam David, Director, Mayor's Office of 
Community Development; Daryl Higashi. Deputy Director, Mayor's Office of Housing; Supervisor Yee, Supervisor Ammiano; David 
Pearson, Head Start; Dr. Norma Tecson, Filipino American Council; Janelle Pierce, Rosa Park Senior Center; Helen Davenport; Father 
Louis Vitale, St. Boniface Neighborhood Center; Janet Gomes, S. F. Conservation Corp.; Donna Bennett, Milestone; Miguel Wooding. 
Eviction Collaborative; Devra Edelman, Haight Ashbury Food Program; Maurice. Bemal Heights Neighborhood Center, LaDawn Law. 
SFUSD, Child Development Program. Tami Rice-Mitchell. Charles Drew Center. Aurora Manmack; Betty H.; Lisa Gray. Young 
Community Developers, Clarence Shaw. Housing Conservation and Development Corp.; Barbara Brown; Homer Marshall; Carlos 
Romero, Mission Housing, Grant Din. Asian Neighborhood Design, Teresa Vergel; Dominado Purugganan, World War 1 1 Veteran; 
Colleen Cassity, Juma Ventures; Gary K.; Gay Kaplan; Marian Doub, Women for Self Employment; Donna Feingold; Edmund Tong, 
Asian, Inc.; Mr. Young; Claudia Viek, Renaissance Entrepreneur Center. Continued to Apnl 19, 2000. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harney Rose, Budget Analyst; Pam David, Director. Mayor's Office of 
Community Development; Jerry Levine, Vice Chair, Citizen's Committee on Community Development; Ed 
Tong. Asian Inc.; Enola Maxwell, Potrero Hill Neighborhood House; Supervisor Bierman; Devra Edelman. 
Haight Ashbury Food Program; Helen Heifer, Hospitality House; Linda Robertson, S.F. League of Urban 
Gardeners; Ben, Dorothy Day Community Center; Monique Martin, Director. Ingleside Community Center; 
Janet Gomes, S.F. Consen'ation Corp., Julie Cavanaugh. Visitacion Valley Community Center; Orville Lester. 
Youth for Senice; Lefty Gordon, Ella Hill Hutch Center; Wanda Barnes, Walden House; Luis Flares; 
Supervisor Yee. 
AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW TITLE. 

Resolution approving the 2000 Community Development Program authorizing the Mayor, on behalf of the 
City and County of San Francisco, to accept and expend the City's 2000 Community Development Block 
Grant (CDBG) Entitlement from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and program 
income generated by the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency up to 533,734,275 which include indirect 
costs of $160,000; and approving expenditure schedules for recipient departments and agencies for indirect 
costs; placing $533,581 on reserve. 
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Bierman 

Absent: 1 - Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 3 I'nm.d at 9.5$ t W ••„ 4 ;i 00 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



\prii I '). 201)11 



000424 | Food Service - Application and Permit Fees] 

Ordinance amending Part III of the San Francisco Municipal (ode ( Business mu\ I a\ Regulation Code) by 
amending Section 24". 1 1 to revise permit Ices foi temporarj food operations at special events; amending Part 
II of the San Francisco Municipal ( ode ( I rat lie Code) hy amending Section 806 to revise Department ol 
Public Health permit fees for food operations at street fairs; amending Part II of the Municipal (ode (Health 
Code) by amending Sections 45 1 and 452, to reorganize the section on applying for permits to operate a food 
establishment, modify the definition of "special events," change the deadline lot applications lor temporary 
food permits for special events; and impose an extra tee lor late applications for temporary permits. (Public 
Health Department ) 

(Amends Business and Tax Regulation < ode Section 24'/ 1 1 . amends I raffic < ode Section N06: amends 

Health Code Sections 451 and 452 ) 

3/8/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNI Dtol inanceand I abor Committee 

i ONTINI II I) Continued to April 19 
Heard in Committee Speakers Jack Hreslin, Department of Public Health Edward Evans, Tenderloin 
Housiny, 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Bierman 

Absent: 1 - Ammiano 



000565 |Fixing compensation for unrepresented employees, fiscal \ear 2000-2001. | 

Ordinance fixing compensation lot persons employed by the City and County of San Francisco whose 
compensations are subjeel to the provisions of Section AS 409 of the Charter, in classes not represented b> an 
employee organization and establishing working schedules and conditions of employment and methods of 
payment, effective July 1, 2000. (Human Resources Department) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

3/29/00, RE( I l\l I) AND ASSIGNED to Finance and I abor Committee 
4/7/00, SUBSTITUTED. Substituted b> Department ol Human Resources bcanng same title. - 
4/7/00, ASSIGNED to Finance and I abor Committee 

Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst, Alice VUlagpmez Employee Relations, 
Department of Human Resourt c i 
RECOMMENDED b) the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee. Bierman, Ammiano 



000524 [Authorizing expenditure of funds estimated at S4.2 10.000 for emergency repair of San Joaquin Pipeline 
No. 31 

Resolution authorizing expenditure of funds for emergency repair of corrosion in San Joaquin Pipeline N 
of the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct. (Public Utilities Commission) 

(Fiscal impact ) 

) :: 00, ki CI IVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

Continued to April 26. 2000 
CONTINUED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 9:50 AM on ^/ Oil 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



April 19, 2000 



000568 [Lease of PIC land to Koret Foundation at an annual rental of S13. 211.00] 

Resolution authorizing a 20-year lease of Public Utilities Commission land between the City and County of 
San Francisco and Koret Foundation, in San Mateo County. (Public Utilities Commission) 
3/29/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst; Gary Dowd. Public Utilities Commission. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



000484 [Lease - Hotel Le Nain| 
Supervisor Newsom 

Resolution authorizing and approving the master lease by and between the City and County of San Francisco, 
for the Department of Public Health, as tenant and Hc.jI Le Nam, LLC, as landlord, for the "Hotel Le Nam" 
located at 730 Eddy Street. 

3/20/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Han. ey Rose, Budget Analyst; Anne Kronenberg. Department of Public 
Health; Supenisor Ammiano; Supenisor Yee; Edward Evans 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



000576 [Appropriating funds for landscape improvements to the Mid-Embarcadero Music Concourse located 
south of Justin Herman Plaza) 
Supervisors Newsom, Bierman 

Ordinance appropriating 5984,850 of the Neighborhood Development Special Revenue Fund balance to fund 
the proposed Mid-Embarcadero Music Concourse, for the Department of Recreation and Park for fiscal year 
1999-2000. 

(Fiscal impact.) 

4/3/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Deborah Learner, Recreation and Park 

Department. Amended to change name of Fund to "Downtown Park Fund"; place $309,000 on reserve and 

reduce appropriation to S9S1.553. 

AMENDED. 

Ordinance appropriating S981.553 of the Downtown Park Fund balance to fund the proposed Mid- 
Embarcadero Music Concourse, for the Department of Recreation and Park for fiscal year 1999-2000; placing 
$309,000 on reserve. 

(Fiscal impact.) 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



City- and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 9: SO Of on 4 ?/ Oil 



Finance and Labor Committee Meeting Minutes April 19, 2000 



000186 [Annual Joint Fundraising Drive | 

Hearing to consider applications from various agencies to participate in the 2000 Joint Annual i undraising 
Drive. (Finance and Labor Committee) 
1/31/00, RECI IVI ii and ASSIGN! Dtol inanceand I »bor Committee 
1/31/00 - From Community Health Charities 
2/04/00 - From Mayor's Homeless Fund 
2/08/00 - From Earth Share of California 
2/22/00 - From Bay Area Black United Fund, Inc 
2/22/00 - From United Way of the Hay Area and Affiliate 
2/23/00 - From Local Independent Charities 
3/01/00 - From International Service Agencies 
3/13/00 - From Private Industry Council 
6/00 From San Francisco Youth Fund 

Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose, Budgt Analyst, Jill Lerner, Department of Administrative 
Senices ; Supervisor Yee. Erin McGrath, Ma) or's Budget I >l!'n e ( 'edrii Yap. Department oj Children, Youth 
and Families; Brenda Brown, Private Industry Conned. Everett Brandon, Chair, 2000 Joint Annual 
Fundraising Drive 
PREPARED IN COMMITTEE AS A RESOLUTION. 

Resolution designating those agencies qualified to participate in the 2000 Annual Joint Fundraising Drive foi 
officers and employees of the City and Countj of San Francisco (Finance and I abor Committee) 

RECOMMENDED by the follouinc vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



ADJOURNMENT 



The meeting adjourned at II -42 a m 



City and County of San Francisco 8 Printed at 9:50 AM on 4~2 100 



o \si 



^ss^S?, 




CITY AND COUNTY -*=^^V-' 0F 5AN FRANC1SC0 

POARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 
FAX (415) ^o2-0461 



April 13, 2000 
TO: ^Finance and Labor Committee 

™ nw ' , , A , + DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

FROM: ^Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting APR 1 8 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 
Items 1. 2. and 3 - Files 00-0328, 00-0685. and 00-0687 PUBLIC LIBRARY 

Note: Item 1, File 00-0328, was continued by the Finance and Labor Committee at 
its meeting of April 12, 2000. 

Department: Ethics Commission 

Item: Item 1 - File 00-0328 

Ordinance amending the San Francisco Administrative 
Code to add Article XIIE, Sections 16.549-1 through 
16.549-18, to provide for public financing of election 
campaigns, and to add Article XIIF, Sections 16.550-1 
through 16.550-10, to provide for increased disclosure of 
campaign contributions and expenditures. 

File 00-0328 is referred to in this report and in 
attached memorandum from the Ethics Commission as , r 
"Amendment of the Whole" ordinance. 

Item 2 - File 00-0685 

Ordinance amending the San Francisco Administrative 

Code to add Article XIIE, Sections 16.549-1 through 

16.549-18, to provide for public financing of elect ion 

campaigns. 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

File 00-0685 is referred to in this report and in the 
attached memorandum as the "Ethics Commission 
Proposal" ordinance. 

Item 3 - File 00-0687 

Ordinance amending the San Francisco Administrative 
Code to add Article XIIE, Sections 16.549-1 through 
16.549-18, to provide for public matching funds to 
candidates for local office who are targeted by large 
independent expenditure campaigns, and to add Article 
XIIF. Sections 16.550-1 through 16.550-10, to provide for 
increased disclosure of campaign contributions and 
expenditures. 

File 00-0687 is referred to in this report and in the 
attached memorandum as the "Public Matching Funds for 
Independent Expenditures" ordinance. 

Description: The three proposed ordinances would provide varying 

levels of public funds from a newly established Election 
Campaign Fund to partially defray the election campaign 
costs of eligible candidates for the Board of Supervisors. 
Additional public funds would be available to qualifying 
candidates who must also contest a run-off election. 

Comments: 1. The Attachment, provided by Ms. Naomi Starkman of 

the Ethics Commission, compares the three proposed 
ordinances in terms of: 

• their legislative provisions (Parts A through D); 

• the projected costs to the Election Campaign Fund of 
the three proposed public financing programs (Part E); 
and 

• the costs to the Ethics Commission of administering 
each of the proposed ordinances (Part F). 

2. Part E of the Attachment compares the projected costs 
to the Election Campaign Fund for each of the three 
proposed public financing programs: 

(a) Under the "Ethics Commission Proposal" ordinance 
(File 00-0685). the total estimated program costs for 
the November 2000 General Election would be 
between $1,007,000 and $2,728,000. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



(b) Under the "Amendment of the Whole" ordinance 
(File 00-0328), the total estimated program costs for 
the November 2000 General Election would be 
between $845,000 and $2,090,000 if voluntary 
expenditure ceilings in the supervisorial districts are 
not lifted (e°e Comment No. 4 below). This range of 
costs is lower than the estimated range for the 
"Ethics Commission Proposal" ordinance of 
$1,007,000 and $2,728,000 (File 00-0685). However, 
if voluntary expenditure ceilings are lifted, the costs 
could be considerably different. 

(c) Under the "Public Matching Funds for Independent 
Expenditures" ordinance (File 00-0687), the total 
estimated program costs for the November 2000 
General Election would be between $432,500 and 
$1,045,000 if voluntary expenditure ceilings in the 
supervisorial districts are not lifted. This range of 
costs is lower than the estimated ranges for either of 
the other two proposed ordinances. However, if 
voluntary expenditure ceilings are lifted, the costs 
could be different. However, the potential increase 
in costs would be less than under the 'Amendment of 
the Whole" ordinance (File 00-0328) due to the more 
limited conditions under which the voluntary 
expenditure ceilings can be lifted and the lower 
maximum public funding levels available (see 
Comment No. 4 below). 

3. All three proposed ordinances would incur additional 
costs for the Ethics Commission to administer a public 
financing program. As explained in Part F of the 
Attachment: 

• the "Ethics Commission Proposal" ordinance (File 00- 

0685) would incur additional administration ousts of 
approximately $137,000; and 

• the other two proposed ordinances would incur 

additional administration costs of approximately 
$177,000. 

According to Ms. Ginny Vide of the Ethics Commission, 
the Ethics Commission has not included m its FY ^000- 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



2001 budget request any additional funding for the new 
Ethics Commission functions related to the proposed 
public financing program. Ms. Vida states that if one of 
the proposed ordinances is approved, then the Ethics 
Commission would request additional FY 2000-2001 
funding through a supplemental appropriation. 

1. Article XIIE, Section 16.549-9 of both the "Amendment 
of the Whole" ordinance (File 00-0328) and the "Public 

Matching Funds for Independent Expenditures" 
ordinance (File 00-0687) provides for the lifting of the 
voluntary expenditure ceilings in the supervisorial 
districts. 

Under the Amendment of the Whole" ordinance (File 00- 
0328), the voluntary expenditure ceiling can be lifted 
under two conditions. First, the voluntary >xpenditure 
ceiling can be lifted if a candidate who is not participating 
in the public financing program receive- contributions, 
has cash on hand, or makes campaign i xpenditures in 
excess of the applicable voluntary expenditure ceiling of 
$75,000 for a genera] election and >i!n,000 for a run-off 
election. Second, the voluntary expenditure ceiling can be 
lifted if independent expenditures are made again.-t any 
rticipating in the public financing program, 
or in support of any opposing candidate running in the 
same supervisorial district, and such independent 
expenditures exceed in the aggregate 25 percent of the 
applicable voluntary expenditure ceiling. If the volun* 
expenditure ceiling is lifted in a supervisorial district for 
either of the above reasons, a candidate participating in 
the public financing program would be entitled to receive 
up to an additional $75,000 for a general election and up 
to an additional $40,000 for a run-off election. 

Under the "Public Matching Funds for Independent 
Expenditures" ordinance (File 00-0687). additional public 
funds are made available to candidates only if 
independent expenditures are made against a candidate 
participating in the public financing program, or are 
made in support of an opposing candidate running in the 
same supervisorial district, and those expenditures exceed 
in the aggregate 25 percent of the spending limit, then the 
voluntary expenditure ceiling can be lifted. If the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

voluntary expenditure ceiling is Lifted in a supervisorial 
district for that reason, a candidate participating in the 
public financing program would be entitled to receive up 
to an additional $37,500 for a general election, and up to 
an additional $20,000 for a run-off election. 

5. According to Ms. Julia Moll of the City Attorney's 
Office, the three proposed ordinances would provide 
authority for the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors to 
appropriate sufficient monies to (a) an Election Campaign 
Fund established under the approved ordinance to 
partially defray the election campaign costs of all eligible 
candidates, and to (b) the Ethics Commission for 
administrative costs related to the public financing 
program. However, according to Ms. Moll, such 
appropriations could only be required by a voter-approved 
Charter amendment. Ms. Moll states that this is because 
only voter-approved Charter amendments, rather than 
ordinances, can limit the discretion of the Board of 
Supervisors and the Mayor regarding annual 
appropriations. Ms. Moll states that if the Mayor and the 
Board of Supervisors do not appropriate sufficient funds, 
the public financing program would not provide any funds 
to eligible candidates. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed alternative ordinances is a 

policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



San Francisco 
Ethics Commission 




Attachment 
Page 1 of 4 

1390 Market Street, Suite 801 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
Phone 554-9510 Fax 554-8757 



Finance Committee Meeting 

April 19, 2000 

Public Financing of Election Campaigns 

Comparison of Ethics Commission Proposal with Amendment of the Whole 

and with Public Matching Funds for Independent Expenditures 



A. Eligibility Requirements 



ETHICS COMMISSION PROPOSAL 


AMENDMENT OF THE 
WHOLE 


PUBLIC MATCHING FUNDS 
FOR INDEPENDENT 
EXPENDITURES 


Seek election to the Board of Supervisors 
and be eligible to hold the office sought. 


Same. 


Same. 


Receive at least $5,000 in "qualifying 
contributions" between S10 and SI 00 each 
from at least 50 individual (non-corporate) 
contributors who are San Francisco 
residents. 


Receive at least S5.000 in 
•qualifying contributions" of $100 
or less from individual (non- 
corporate) contributors who are San 
Francisco residents. 


Same as Amendment of the 
Whole. 


Be opposed by another candidate who is 
eligible to receive public financing, or has 
received contributions or made 
expenditures which equal or exceed 
S5.000. 


Be opposed by another candidate 
who is eligible to receive public 
financing, or has received 
contributions or made expenditures 
which equal or exceed S10.000 




Agree to limit personal spending and loans 
to 510,000 per election. 


Agree to limit personal spending 
and loans to SI 0.000 per election 
(but this requirement Joes not 
apply if the voluntary spending 
limits are lifted). 


Same as Amendment of the 
Whole. 


Agree to limit campaign spending to 
$75,000 for the general election and 
$20,000 for the run-off election, if one is 

required. 


Same. 


Same. 


Agree to participate in at least one debate. 


Same. 


Same. 



San Francisco Ethics Commission 
Finance Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors 

April 19. 2000 
Pace I 



Attachment 
Page 2 of 4 



B. Disbursement of Public Funds in General Election 



ETHICS COMMISSION PROPOSAL 



AMENDMENT OF THE 
WHOLE 



PUBLIC MATCHING FUNDS 
FOR INDEPENDENT 
EXPENDITURES 



The maximum amount of public funds a 
candidate would receive in the general 
election is 545,000. 



The maximum amount of public 
funds a candidate would receive in 
the general election is 537,500. 
(Additional public funding would be 
provided if the SDending limits are 
lifted. See Item D below.) 



See Item D below. 



Upon certification of eligibility, the 
candidate would receive a payment of 
S5.000 from the Fund. Thereafter, 
candidates would receive 54 from the Fund 
for every SI of matching contributions 
raised by the candidate, up to an additional 
520,000. Thereafter, candidates would 
receive 51 from the Fund for every 51 of 
matching contributions raised by the 
candidate, up to an additional 520,000 in 
public funds. 



Upon certification of eligibility, the 
candidate would receive 52 from the 
Fund for every 51 in matching 
contributions raised by the 
candidate. Until 15 days before the 
election, a candidate may submit a 
request for public funds each time 
the candidate raises 55,000 in 
matching contributions. Within 15 
days before the election, a 
candidate may submit a request for 
public funds every time the 
candidate raises 51,000 in 
matching contributions. 



Funds only disbursed if the 
voluntary spending limits are 
lifted due to independent 
expenditures. (See Item D 
below.) 



C. Disbursement of Public Funds in Run-Off Election 



ETHICS COMMISSION PROPOSAL 


AMENDMENT OF THE 
WHOLE 


PUBLIC MATCHING FUNDS 
FOR INDEPENDENT 
EXPENDITURES 


The maximum amount of public funds a 
candidate would receive for the run-off 
election is 517,000. 


The maximum amount of public 
funds a candidate would receive for 
the run-off election is 520,000. 
(Additional public funding would be 
provided if the spending limits are 
lifted. See Item D below. 


Same as Amendment of the 
Whole. 


Each candidate who qualifies for a run-off 
election would receive a payment of 
55,000 from the Fund. Thereafter, each 
candidate would receive S4 from the Fund 
for every 51 of matching contributions 
raised by the candidate, up to an additional 
512.000 in public funds. 


Each candidate who qualifies for a 
run-off election would receive a 
payment of 520, 000 within three 
days following the general election. 


Funds only disbursed if the 
voluntary spending limits are 
lifted due to independent 
expenditures. \ See Item D 
below, below ) 



San Francisco Ethics Commission 
Finance Commute; of the San Francisco Board of Surer 

Page : 



Attachment 
Pa?e 3 of 4 



P. Disbursement of Public Funds if the Spending Limits Arc Lifted 



ETHICS COMMISSION PROPOSAL 



AMENDMENT OF THE 
WHOLE 



PUBLIC MATCHING FUNDS 
FOR INDEPENDENT 
EXPENDITURES 



The Ethics Commission's proposal does 
not provide for a lifting of the voluntary 
spending limits or additional public funds 
in the case of a high-spending opponent. 



If a nonparticpating candidate 
receives contributions, has cash on 
hand or makes qualified campaign 
expenditures in excess of the 
voluntary spending limit, the 
spending limit is lifted and the 
participating candidate is entitled to 
receive SI in public funds for every 
SI in private funds raised or spent 
by the nonparticipating candidate in 
excess of the spending limit. The 
maximum amount to be awarded 
under these circumstances in the 
general election may not exceed 
575,000 per candidate. The 
maximum amount to be awarded 
under these circumstances in the 
run-off election is 540,000 per 
candidate. 



This proposal does not provide 
additional public matching funds 
if the voluntary spending limits 
are lifted due to financial activity 
of a nonparticipating candidate 



The Ethics Commission's proposal does 
not provide for a lifting of the voluntary 
spending limits or additional public funds 
in the case of independent expenditures. 



If independent expenditures against 
any participating candidate, or in 
support of any opposing candidate 
running in the same supervisorial 
district, exceed in the aggregate 
25° o of the spending limit, the 
spending limit is lifted and any 
targeted participating candidate is 
entitled to SI in public funds for 
every S 1 in independent expenditure 
above 25° o of the spending limit. 
The maximum amount to be 
awarded under these circumstances 
in the general election may not 
exceed 575,000 per candidate. The 
maximum amount to be awarded 
under these circumstances in the 
run-off election is 540, 000 per 
candidate. 



If independent expenditures 
against any participating 
candidate, or in support of an> 
opposing candidate running in 
the same supervisorial district, 
exceed in the aggregate 25°/o of 
the spending limit, the spending 
limit is lifted and any targeted 
participating candidate is entitled 
to SI in public funds for every 
SI in independent expenditure 
above 25% of the spending limit. 
The maximum amount to be 
awarded under these 
circumstances in the general 
election may not exceed 137,500 
per candidate. The maximum 
amount to be awarded under 
these circumstances in the run- 
off election is 520,000 per 
candidate 



San Francisco Ethics Commission 
Finance Committee ot'ihe San Francisco Board of Supei 

Apr; 



Attachment 
Page 4 of h 



E. Projected Election Campaign Fund Budget 



ETHICS COMMISSION PROPOSAL' 



Year 



Range of Costs 



2000 



S 1,007.000-52.728.000 



2002 



S467.000-S 1.240.000 



AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE" 

Please see footnote 2 below for more 
information about the cost of this 
program re: lifting of the voluntary 
spending limits. 



Year 



2000 



2002 



Range of Costs 



5845,000 - 52.090.000 



5395,000 - 5950.000 



PUBLIC MATCHING FUNDS 
FOR INDEPENDENT 
EXPENDITURES 3 



Year j Range of Costs 



2000 



2002 



5432.500-51,045,000 | 
5207,500 - 5475,000 1 



2004 



5557,000 -Sl.488,000 



2004 



5470,000-51.140.000 



2004 



5245,000 - 5570.000 



'in the 2000 general election, all 1 1 Board seats will be vacant. After the 2000 general election, the clerk of 
the Board will determine by lot whether the supervisors elected from the even or odd-numbered districts will 
have terms expiring in two or four years Accordingly, there will be either 5 or 6 vacant seats in 2002 and 
2004. For purposes of these estimates, it is assumed that there will be 5 vacant seats in the 2002 general 
election and 6 vacant seats in the 2004 general election. Commission staff developed assumptions as to how 
many candidates will participate in the program in the next three general elections: 1) between 2 and 4 
candidates per district will receive public financing in the general election; and 2) between 1 and 2 candidates 
per district will receive public financing in the run-off election. 

"The Commission based the cost estimates of the Amendment of the Whole on the above-described 
assumptions. The projected Fund budget for the Amendment of the Whole does not reflect additional public 
funds which could be disbursed if the voluntary spending limits are lifted. These costs could vary 
dramatically and are difficult to determine. However, if in the 2000 election, an average of \ candidate per 
district qualifies for full funding in both the general and run-off elections to offset independent spending or 
high spending by an opponent, it could cost the City an additional total of SI .265.000 for all 1 1 districts. 

3 Because the threshold to qualify for public funds in this proposal is quite high ($15,000), Commission staff 
estimate that fewer candidates will qualify for additional public funds. For this reason, staff determined 
between 1 and 2 candidates per district will receive public financing in the general election and 1 candidate 
per district will receive public financing in the run-off election. For purposes of these estimates, it is assumed 
that there will be 5 vacant seats in the 2002 general election and 6 vacant seats in the 2004 general election. 

F. Projected Administrative Costs to the Ethics Commission 



ETHICS COMMISSION 
PROPOSAL 


AMENDMENT OF THE 
WHOLE 4 


PUBLIC MATCHING FUNDS 
FOR INDEPENDENT 
EXPENDITURES 


Item 


Amount 


Item 


Amount 


Item ! Amount 


Salaries of 2 FT 


5100,000 


Salaries of 3 FT 


5135,000 


Salaries of 3 FT 1 SI 35,000 


professional 

employees 




professional 
emplovees 




professional 
employees 




Salary of 1 FT 


517,000 


Salarv of I FT 


517,000 


Salary of 1 FT 


S17.000 


clerical employee 
@ 6 months 




clerical 
employee @ 6 
months 




clerical 
emplo>c 

months 




Non-personnel 
costs 


520,000 


Non-personnel 
costs 


525.000 


Non-personnel 
costs 


S25.000 


Total 


5137,000 


Total 


S177,000 


Total i SI 77,000 



4 These costs will be increased due to additional mandates proposed by the Amendment to the Whole 



■ rancisco Ethk 
Finance Committee of the San Fran 

■ 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 4 - File 00-0486 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance and Labor Committee at itfl 

meeting of April 12. 2000. 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Grant Period: 
Description: 



Mayor's Office of Community Development (MOCD) 

Resolution approving the FY 2000-2001 Emergency Shelter 
Grants Program and expenditure schedule and authorizing the 
Mayor, on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco, to 
apply for, accept, and expend a $890,000 entitlement under the 
Emergency Shelter Grants Program from the Federal 
Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

$890,000 

Federal Department of Mousing ami Urban Development (HID) 

July 1. 2000 through June 30, 2001 

The HUD Emergency Shelter Grants Program was 
established under the Stewart B. McKinney Homeli 'ance 

Act in July of 1987. The program is designed to as- 
improving the quality of existing emergency shelters for the 
homel making available additional emergency shelters, 

and (c) meeting the costs of operating emergency shelters. The 
goal of the program is to provide certain essential social services 
to homeless individual- so that those persons have access to the 
suppoi eded to improve their .situations. 

The Mayor's Office of Community Development (MOCD) is 

responsible for admin: ind monitoring the Emergency 

Shelter Grants Program (ESGP). Funds from the ESGP are 

ted under five categories, three program categories 

ntial and Social Services. Maintenance and Operating 

Expenses, and Homeless Prevention Services) and two other 

dories (MOCD Administration and an Emergency Shelter 

Grants Pool). MOCD proposes to allocate grant funds in the 

amount of §890,000 from the FY 2000-2001 ESGP grant (which is 

$1,000 less than the 1999 ESGP allocation of $891,000) to 14 

projects in the three program categories noted above, to 

administrative costs, and to the Emergency Shelter Grants Pool. 

Approval of the proposed resolution would (a) authorize the 
MOCD to accept and expend the FA' 2000-2001 Emergency 
Shelter Grant and (b) approve the FY 2000-2001 Emergency 
Shelter Grants Program and expenditure schedule. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Budget: 



The proposed summary budget for the ESGP allocation of 
$890,000 is as follows: 









Increase/ 






Proposed 


j (Decrease) 




FY' 1999- 


FY 2000- 


from FY 


Prosram 


2000 


2001 


1999-2000 




Budget 


Budget 


Budget 


American Red Cross 


$68,000 


$68,000 


$ 


Asian Women's Shelter 


56,000 


56,000 


. 


Catholic Charities 


25.000 


25,000 


. 


Compass Community Services 


50,000 


50,000 


. 


Dolores Street Community Services 


41.000 


48,000 


7,000 


Episcopal Community Services 


40,000 


40,000 




Friendship House Association 


36.900 


36,900 




Hamilton Family Center, Inc. 


43,000 


50,000 


7,000 


La Casa de las Madres 


77.300 


77,300 


. 


Larkin Street Youth Center 


54,000 


54,000 


. 


Metropolitan Community Foundation 





47,000 


47.000 


St. Vincent de Paul Society 


20,000 


20,000 


. 


Swords to Plowshares 


38,600 


38,600 


. 


United Council of Human Services 


96,000 


96,000 


. 


Emergency Shelter Pool 


120,350 


138,700 


18.350 


MOCD Administration (5%) 


44.500 


44,500 


- 


Programs Not Funded in FY 2000-2001 


80.350 


. 


(80.350) 


Total 


$891,000 


$890,000 


($1,000) 



The Attachment, provided by MOCD, contains the ESGP FY" 
1999-2000 budget and FY* 2000-2001 proposed budget, and a list. 
including descriptions, of the above programs. Of the programs 
noted above, one program is new and 3 have increased funding 
from the FY 1999-2000 ESGP budget, for a total of increased 
funding of $79,350. Additionally, programs funded in FY* 1999- 
2000, totaling $80,350, were not funded in FY 2000-2001. The 
total ESGP allocation in FY* 2000-2001 of $890,000 is $1,000 Less 
than the FY* 1999-2000 allocation of $891,000. 

The Budget Analyst has reviewed budgets for four programs with 
increased funding. (Hamilton Family Center, Dolor 
Community Services, the Metropolitan Community Foundation, 

and the Emergency Shelter Pool). These programs are disc 
below. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Hamilton Family Center. Inc. $50,000 

The proposed budget of $50,000 for Hamilton Family Center, Inc. 
is $7,000 or 16.3 percent more than the FY 1999-2000 allocation 
of $43,000. According to Mr. Jon Pon. the proposed allocation 
would be used for rent at L525 Waller Street. Mr. Pon states that 
the rent paid by Hamilton Family Center at 1525 Waller Street 
is currently $74,784 annually (9,750 square feet at $0.64 per 
square fool per month), and that, on July 1. 2000, the rent will 
incre.i Q annual rent increase of $5,988 or 8 

percent 

Dolores Street Community Services -.000 

According to Mr. Pon. $48,000 has been allocated to Dolores 
Street Community Services in FY' 2000-2001, which is $7,000, or 
17 percent, more than the FY* 1999-2000 allocation of $41,000. 
Mr Pun states that increased funds in the amount of $7,000 
would be used to partially fund the program director and case 
manager positions in the employment advocacy program for 
Latino working homeles 

Metropolitan Community Foundation 1 000 

The Board of Supervisors approved allocation of $23,416 of 
Emergency Shelter Pool funds in December of 1999 for the 
Metropolitan Community Foundation's - Mission High Shower 
Project for homeless p. 19-21 14). In FY ^000-2001. 

MOCD recommends an allocation of $47,000 to the Metropolitan 
Community Foundation for the continuation and expansion of 
Mission High School Shower Project. The Mission High School 
Shower Project is funded by private and non-City donations and 
grants, as well as the subject $47,000 in ESGP monies, for a total 
budget of- - The Budget Analyst has reviewed details for 

the proposed budget and finds them to be reasonable. 

Emergency Shelter Pool SI 38. 700 

MOCD has proposed allocating S138.700 in ESGP funds I 
Emergency Shelter Pool in FY" 2000-2001. which is $18,350 or 15 
percent more than the $120,350 allocated in FY" 1999-2000. Mr. 

Pon states that the increased funds are necessary because the 



1 The Dolores Street Community Services program's proposed FY 2000-2001 budget has budgeted 
for 1.0 FTE Case Manager at S30.000 annually and 1.0 FTE Program Director at S37.000 annually. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Revised 4/11/2000 - File 00-0486 



Required Match: 



Indirect Costs: 
Comments: 



Recommendations: 



City anticipates a reduction in other Stewart B. McKinney 
Homeless Assistance Act funds in FY 2000-2001 compared to FY 
1999-2000. 2 The increased funds in the Emergency Shelter Pool 
would be used to provide emergency homeless shelter services in 
the winter of 2000-2001. The Budget Analyst recommends 
placing Emergency Shelter Pool funds in the amount of $138,700 
on reserve, pending submission of a program plan and budget. 

HUD requires one-to-one matching funds, totaling $890,000. for 
the ESGP funds. According to Ms. Julie Brenman of DHS, such 
matching funds have been budgeted in the proposed FY 2000- 
2001 DHS budget. 

None provided by the ESGP grant. 

1. As noted above, the subject ESGP grant would allocate funds 
to (a) 14 nonprofit agencies, Ob) to administrative costs and (c) to 
the Emergency Shelter Pool. The Budget Analyst recommends 
approval of existing programs with the same funding level as the 
prior year. Approval of programs with increased funding is a 
policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. Additionally, the 
Budget Analyst recommends placing $138,700 allocated to the 
Emergency Shelter Pool on reserve, pending submission of a 
program plan and budget details. 

2. The MOCD has prepared a Disability Access Checklist, which 
is on file with the Clerk of the Board. 

1. Approve funding in the amount of $829,000 ($890,000 less new 
or increased funding of $61,000). 

2. Of the $829,000, reserve $138,700 for the Emergency Shelter 
Pool, as noted in Comment No. 1. 

3. Approval of funding in the amount of $61,000 for expanded 
programs including a $7,000 increase for Dolores Street 
Community Services, a $7,000 increase for Hamilton Family 
Center and $47,000 for the Metropolitan Community Foundation 
to expand the Mission High School shower project is a policy 
matter for the Board of Supervis 



2 According to Ms. Julie Brenman of the Department of Human Services (DHS1 HI 
89,000,000 to DHS in Federal McKinney funds in FY 1999-2000. Ms. Brenman states in FY 2000- 
2001. DHS expects to receive S6. 900. 000 in McKinney funds, a $2, 100.000 decrease from FY L999- 
2000. Such funds are used to provide supportive and transitional housing and social sen 
homeless San Franciscans. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Mayors Office of Community Development and Mayor's Office of Housing 
Expenditure Schedule 2000 CDBG, ESG and HOME Page I ol" I 4/5/00 1 2 43 PM 



Attachment 
Page I of 3 



Agency 1 FY99 FY0O RQ FYOO Ret ...-.-■ 


Enier°eocv Shelter Gram 


Amencan Red Cross Bav Arex SF 


68.001 


. , , 


,.- H 1 




Asian Women's Shelter 


56.001 


56 01 


56 irx 





Catholic Chanties /St. JoseDh's Village 


25.000 


25.75C 


25.001 




Comoass Communirv Services 


50,00( 




50.00(i 





Dolores St Communirv Services/So Van Ness Loc 


4 1 .000 


4 i 


48.000 


i 


Ementencv Shelter Pool 


120.350 




138.700 


- 


Episcopal Communirv Services of SF 


M),00i 


• ■ 101 


40.000 




Fnendshm House Association of. Amencan Indians. Inc 


36.900 


fi I 


16 ),„ 




Hamilton Familv Center. Inc 


,- i i 


, 


50.000 


1 


La Casa de ias Maarcs 


■- 100 


■ 


1 1 ' 




Larkin Street Youth Center 


54.000 


■ 


-■ 4.001 




Metropolitan Communirv Foundation 


" 


6 


47 01 ii 


j7.0f> 


MOCD (5% Admin) 


u - 


la 772 


44 5O0 




St Vincent DePaul Society 


20.000 




20 000 




Swords to Plowshares 


38.600 


46.764 


ii t500 




United Council of Human Services i The i 


96.000 


' 


; ii.i 




Central City HosDitalirv House 


i ■ fj 


' ' 







Volunteer Legal Services Program Sr Bar Assn 


50.000 


- 


'1 




Asian Law Caucus 










Booker T Washington Communitv Service '-'enter 




50 Di] 


1] 




Metropolitan Communirv Foundation 










Tides Center. SF Eviction Detensc Collaborative 




' 






Central Cir. Hospitality House fOrlando) 


M 








Salvation Armv i Lifeboat Lodcel 




















TOTAL EMERGENCY SHELTER 


40S.564 


• .. i 


- 1 


1 












Attachment 
Pige~T~oF~3 



Emergency Shelter Grant Program 



Activity Name and Location 



Program Description 



Provosed Bud* 



Emergency Shelter Grants 

These projects are directed soecincaih towards seri'ces extended towards homeless indi-ndtmi and famuies. 



American Red Cross (Bay .Area) 
35 2nd Street 



Provide back rcat grants to eligible singie non- 563.000 

disabled adults :o prevent eviction 



2. Asian Women's Shelter 
(Confidential) 



Provide shelter and support services to battered 
women and their children 



Sfc.:oe 



3 . Catholic Charities 

31-t Mission Street. Mezzanine 



Provice security deposits and other assistance 
to those in danger of eviction. 



S25.0C0 



4 . Compass Community Services 
1 1 1 Tavlor Street 



Provide emergency shelter to homeless families Sf 0.000 



Dolores Street Community Services 
938 Valencia Street 



Provide employment development services :o 
homeless immigrant latino men 



S4S.000 



6. Episcopal Community Services of Sr 
201 3th Street 



Provice shelter services, comprehensive case 
management and on-site job counse 



SJ 



■ . Friendship House Association of American Indians Provide shelter to homeless American Indian 

on , r , acuits seek: na treatment and counseling for 

80 Julian Avenue - - 

aicohol/substar.c: abuse addictions 



: 



S. Hamilton Family Center. Ir.c 
1:2: Waller Street 



• rrrrerr-rr.:;- :n;:tcr lo homeless t'arnii 









Attachment 
Page 3 of 3 



Emergency Shelter Grant Program 



Activity Same and Location 



Program Description 



Prooosed Budget 



9 . La Casa dc las Madrcs 
(Confidential) 



Provide shelter and 24-ho^ bilingual crisis 
line, drop-in program, and counseling services 
to bartered \vorr"-n ana their children 



st-.:oo 



10. Larkin Street Youth Center 
533 Central Avenue 



Provide emergency shelter and xiated cervices 
to runawav vouth asc 






1 . Metropolitan Community Foundation 
3750 18th Street 



Provide showers and personal hygjene rerviccs 
as pan of Mission High School Shower Project 
to the homeless 






12. St. Vincent de Paul Society of Sr 
(Confidential) 



Provide emergency shelter for bartered women 
and their child 



' 



Swords ;o Plowshares 
1063 Market Sire:: 



Provide case management assistance :o 
homeless and at-risk veterans to access and 
protect disability income and medical benefits 






; Council of Human S< 
2111 Jennings Street 



Prov.ce services to homeless or at-risk of 
becoming homeless, including pantry program, 
food oag program, hot meal program 

crisis :ounse:i.-.e and 
■ ;m:is 






Emergency She/.er ?joi 
CoMOCD 



.--.erger.cy funding for homeless 
• ear 



■ 



16. MOCD/ESG Admini 
VtOCD 



if ESC Proe'am 






GRA>D TOTAL EMERGENCY SHELTER PROGRAM 



5390.000 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 5 - File 00-0487 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance and Labor Committee at its 
meeting of April 12, 2000. 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 
Grant Period: 
Source of Funds: 

Project: 
Description: 



Mayor's Office of Housing (MOH) 

Resolution (a) authorizing the Mayor to apply for, accept 
and administer a grant from the U.S. Department of 
Housing and Urban Development for a total amount not to 
exceed $7,115,000 for the Home Program authorized under 
Title II of the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990, 
Public Law Number 101-625, and (b) approving the Home 
Program description, as described in the 2000 Action Plan 
for San Francisco's Consolidated Plan. This resolution 
states that indirect, costs associated with the acceptance of 
these grant funds will be paid by Community Development 
Block Grant funds. 

Not to exceed $7, 115,000 

July 1. 2000 through June 30, 2001 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 
(HUD) 

Home Investment Partnership (HOME) Program 

The HOME Program is authorized under title II of the 
National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 (Public Law 
Number 101-625). The Act provides funds for the 
acquisition, rehabilitation, and development of privately- 
owned affordable housing. 



In August of 1994, HUD issued regulations requiring that a 
Consolidated Plan be developed for (a) the HOME Program, 
(b) the Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS 
(HOPWA) Program, and (c) the Community Development 
Block Grant (CDBG) Program. In response, MOH ha^ 
developed a "Preliminary 2000 Action Plan for the City and 
Countv of San Francisco, Draft for Public Review" 1 . The 



1 The "Preliminary 2000 Action Plan for the City and County of San Francisco. Draft for Public 
Review", dated March 30, 2000. contains the City's plans and programs for privately-owned housing, 
totaling §82,388,311, as shown on the following page. The final 2000 Action Plan will reflect the 
program funding requests approved by the Board of Supervisors in this subject HOM 
legislation, and legislation being considered by the Finance and Labor Committee (Files 00-0 i 
00-0488). 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



MOH advises that the Preliminary 2000 Action Plan, when 
finalized to reflect the program funding to be approved by 
the Board of Supervisors for the three programs noted 
above, will function as the MOH grant application for 
HOME program funding from HUD. MOH and the Mayor's 
Office of Community Development (MOCD) must submit 
the 2000 Action Plan to HUD by May 15, 2000. According 
to the Preliminary 2000 Action Plan for privately owned 
housing development and administrative costs, the MOH 
anticipates receiving $7,115,000. which is $38,000 or 0.5 
percent more than the 1999 allocati' ~~ 000. 

Projected funds for the Preliminary 2000 Action Plan for 
privately owned housing developments t 1,835, 

with the funding sources identified on page of our report 

including 76 of the proposed $7,115,000 HOME 

grant allocation -' and v ther sources of fundin_ 

follows: 



Funding Source 


Amount 


Federal Funds 






HOME 


$6,197 71 




CDBG ' 


•;.50i 




CDBG Program Income 


000 




HOPWA 


185.508 




Subtotal, Federal Funds 




512.029,385 


Local Sources 






Hotel Tax Fund 


4.900,000 




( litywide Tax Increment 


19.275,000 




IMA T.I. 


10.000.000 




Western Addition T.I. 


12.275.000 




Mission Bay 


4.000,000 




Bonds: Development Account 


16,845 




Bonds: Down-payment 






-tance Account 


2.969.700 




Subtotal. Local Funds 




S70.262.450 


Total 




S82.291.835 



2 The funding sources noted above are for capital projects only. Of the proposed HOME grant, 
totaling ST, 115.000, S6, 197.376 is designated for capital projects (including acquisition and 
rehabilitation and new housing construction). $56,474 is designated for tenant rental assistance, and 
$861,150 is designated for HOME administrative costs. 
! Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds are the subject of File 00-0488. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Tbe proposed total 2000 HOME Program funds of 
$7,115,000 represents approximately 8.6 percent of the 
total $ 82,291,835 in projected funds for privately owned 
housing development in San Francisco. 

Procedures for allocating HOME Program funds were 
approved by the Board of Supervisors in August of 1992 
(File 68-92-4.1) and revised in February- of 1994 (File 68-94- 
7). These procedures outlined broad criteria and the 
process for allocating the HOME Program funds, including 
notification procedures to interested parties on the 
availability of housing funds, evaluation of funding 
proposals, and criteria for underwriting housing loans. 
Projects eligible for HOME funding are defined as follows: 

(a) Construction of new housing units or rehabilitation of 
existing housing units, which will be owned and 
managed by the applicant for HOME funding, and 
which will be occupied by households with incomes that 
do not exceed 60 percent of the median income 
established by HUD; or 

(b) First-time home ownership assistance for low-income 
persons with household incomes that do not exceed 80 
percent of the median income established by HUD. 

HOME regulations require that a minimum of 15 percent of 
the City's proposed FY 2000-2001 HOME allocation of 
$7,115,000, or $1,067,250, be reserved for housing 
developed, sponsored or owned by non-profit Community 
Housing Development Organizations (CHDO). According 
to Mr. Joe LaTorre of MOH. nearly all of San Francisco's 
affordable housing development efforts in recent years have 
been conducted in collaboration with local community- 
based non-profit housing development corporations, several 
of which have satisfied HL ; D requirements to qualify as 
CHDOs. CHDOs are expected to continue performing the 
roles that non-profit housing development corporations 
have traditionally performed in San Francisco, including 
acquisition and rehabilitation of existing buildings, 
acquisition of sites and development of new housing, and 
ownership and management of subsidized developments. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Budget: 



The proposed summary budget for the subject HOME 
Investment Partnership Program grant is as follow 



Increase/ 
IV 1999-2000 FY 2000-2001 (Decrease) in 
Program Budget Budget FY 2000-2001 


Acquisition and rehabilitation of 
housing units for loiv-income 
households 

• Per unit cost greater than $25,000 

• Per unit cost less than $25,000 
Subtotal, Acquisition/ Rehabilitation 


1.500.000 
'17,288 


1.500.000 
$3,839,249 


s.039) 



-.039) 


New housing construction 


$1,824,109 


$2,358,127 


$534,018 


Tenant-based housing assistance 


$36,474 


$56,474 


$20,000 


Administrative Costs 

Community Housing Corporation 
MOH HOME Program 
Other administrative c 

Subtotal, AdministraticeCosts 


150,000 

182.995 
$821,129 


150,000 

~ ">71 

153.579 

$861,150 




69 

(29.416) 
$40,021 


Total 


$7,079,000 


$7,115,000 


$36,000 



Required Match: 



$1,778,750 or 25 percent of HOME grant funds. Mr. 
LaTorre states that matching funds arc available from the 
Home Tax Fund, identified as a local funding source on the 
previous page. Such matching funds would be part of the 
total funding 291,835 for privately owned hou 

developments, identified by the Preliminary 2000 Action 
Plan for the City and Countv of San Francisco. 



Comments: 



1. According to Mr. LaTorre. MOH will issue "Notices of 
Funding Availability" to nonprofit developers for (a) 
development of supportive housing 4 units ($2,339,249), and 
(b) preservation of existing nonprofit-owned housing 
($1,500,000). Additionally. S2.35S.127 will be allocated to 
Bridge Housing Corporation, a nonprofit developer, for an 
existing project to construct new family rental housing at 1 
Church Street. This total funding of S6. 197.376 repre- 
percent of th< 00 in HOME funding. 



4 Supportive housing provides necessary social services as well as housing to low-income residents. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

2. Mr. LaTorre states that tenant-based housing assistance 
is provided by Catholic Charities Homeless Prevention 
Program to assist low-income tenants in avoiding eviction. 

3. As shown in the table above, total administrative costs in 
the proposed FY 2000-2001 HOME Investment Partnership 
Program are $861,150, which is $40,021 or 4.9 percent 
more than total administrative costs in the FY 1999-2000 
budget of $821,129 ($150,000 plus $488,134 plus $182,995). 
The FY 2000-2001 MOH HOME program administration 
costs of $557,571 are $69,437 or 14.2 percent more than the 
FY" 1999-2000 allocation of $488,134. According to Mr. 
Roger Sanders of MOCD, the increased HOME program 
administration costs are due to increased salary costs for 
the existing 5.05 program FTES, including negotiated 
salary increases, salary step increases, and the associated 
increase in fringe benefits. The Attachment, provided by 
Mr. Sanders, contains the budget details for the proposed 
FY" 2000-2001 HOME administrative budget. The Budget 
Analyst has reviewed the FY" 1999-2000 and FY 2000-2001 
HOME administrative budgets. 

4. Mr. LaTorre states that $150,000 in administrative costs 
would be allocated to the Community Housing Corporation, 
which is unchanged from the amount allocated in FY 1999- 
2000. Of the $150,000, the Chinese Community Housing 
Corporation. the Mission Housing Development 
Corporation, and the Tenderloin Neighborhood 
Development Corporation would each be allocated $50,000. 

5. Section l.C of MOH Criteria and Procedures for 
allocating HOME Program funds requires that the Director 
of MOH submit an Annual Report to the Board of 
Supervisors by March 31 of each year for the preceding 
calendar year, providing an accounting of all HOME! 
program funds received by the City and how the funds won' 
expended. The Annual Report was submitted to the I 

of Supervisors on April 7. 2000. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for 
the Board of Supervi- 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment 



Mayor's Office of Housing HOME Administrative Expenditure Schedule 2000 



P°m | Grant 


Mai 


in 


Lint Item Descnpnon 


St Sub-Ob| 


Admin 




MOHMOO 


2!H 




Class 


Title 




FTT 






MOHM00 


2IH 


i 


1367 


Special Assistant VIII 


Alv/.Ann 


0:0 


5 




MOHMOO 


21H 




1369 


Special .Assistant X 




5 144.4 




MOHM00 


21 H 




1370 


SpeciaJ Assistant X] 




50 


S 28.07 




MOHM00 


2IH 




1371 


Special AiSistanl XIV 




50 


s : - 




MOHM00 


2IH 




1374 


SpeciaJ .Assistant XII 




43 in 




MOHM00 


21H 




1377 


SpeciaJ Assistant Program Development I :u 


S 10489 




MOHM00 


2IH 




9774 


Sr Communirv Development Spc 1 1 












' 


I 




MOHM00 


21H 




Personnel 


Labor Costs 


116.217 




MOHMOO 


2IH 




Personnel 


Labor Costs Fringe 




S w 56J 




MOHM00 


2IH 




Personnel 


Labor Costs 1 otal 






S 3X5. "V,? 




MOHM00 


:ih 




Personel 


Salarv Savings a 






S : - _■ ■ 






2IH 




Personcl 


Negotiated Increase 




5 15 431 




















Ml HMI 


2IH 




Conference] & Travel 


Conference Travel 




S 




Ml ■■•■< • 


2IH 




Drayage/Frcicht 


rle Sale 






s 




MOHMOO 


21H 




Equipmcni 


Lease Photocopier 






S 5.000 




MOHMOO 


2IH 




Equipmeni 


Maintenance & Repair 






S 1.000 




MOHMOO 


21 H 




Equipment 


Alio Fuel Jl Maintenance 




5 




MOHMOO 


2IH 




Leaal 4 Displav Advertising 






MOHMOO 


21 H 




Memberships 








MOHMOO 


2IH 






1 


s : so 




MOHMOO 


2IH 




Printing 




s 




MOHMOO 


21H 




Rental Space 


25 Van Ness Lease 




S "0.644 




MOHMl 


2IH 




Supplies 


Office Supplies 




s 




Ml HNII 


21H 




Telecommunications 


ervicej 


s 




MOHMOO 


2IH 




Training 


! 


s :.5oo 




MOHMOO 


21 H 




TOTAL 


! 


S 4TJ7I 












I j 






MOHMOO 


21H 




Professional Sen 




S 


Imohmoo 


21H 




Professional Set. 


ning 


s 






21H 




Professional Services 


rnev 


S 23 X 




MOHMOI 


21H 




Professional Services 


Controller 


S 




MOHMOO 


21H 




Professional Sen k 


Real Estate 






M : '.' 


21H 




Professional Services 


ADA 






M< HMi 


21H 




Professional Services 


the 


s 












: l 




Mi |M 211 




Total HOME 


5 557.571 



MOH 2CC0 Euccet Review 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 6 - File 00-0488 



Note: This item was continued by the Finance and Labor Committee at its meeting 
of April 12,2000. 



Department: 
Item: 



Mayor's Office of Community Development (MOCD) 

Resolution approving the FY 2000-2001 Community 
Development Program. This resolution would (a) authorize 
the Mayor, on behalf of the City and County of San 
Francisco, to accept and expend the City's FY 2000-2001 
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement 
from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, and program income generated by the San 
Francisco Redevelopment Agency up to $33,734,275. which 
includes indirect costs of $160,000; and (b) approve the 
expenditure schedule for recipient departments and 
agencies and for indirect costs. 



Description: 



Refer to the Budget Analyst's separate report of April 12. 
2000 on the Mayor's proposed FY 2000-2001 Community 
Development Program. 

The recommended FY 2000-2001 CDBG budget is 
S25.275.000, which is $64,945 or 0.25 percent more than 
the FY 1999-2000 CDBG budget of $25,210,055. Section I 
through XII of the April 12. 2000 report provides an 
analysis of the proposed FY' 2000-2001 CDBG budget, 
including the Budget Analyst's recommendations. 



Summary of 
Recommendations: 



Additionally, funds in the amount of $8,459,275 would be 
used for specific program-income funded activities, as 
discussed in Section XIII of the April 12. 2000 report. 



The Budget Analyst's recommendations for the FY 2000- 
2001 CDBG and Program Income budget are as foil 

r- Reduce the FY" 2000-2001 Program Administration 

budget by $13,146, from the proposed amount 
%A 116,605 to $4,403,459. and place the amount of 
$13,146 on reserve to be used for other CDBG eligible 
activities. 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Reserve $533,581 of the requested FY 1999-2000 CDBG 
and Program Income funds, totaling $33,7. 
follows: 

(1) $90,000 in the Facility Emergency Relief Pool, to be 
used to fund the Lavender Youth Recreation and 
Information Center, pending submission of a 
program plan and budget details. 

(2) $100,000 in the Mayor - Economic Development Pool, 
pending submission of a program plan and budget 
details. 

(3) $43,581 in the MOCD Planning and Ca; 
Building Pool, pending submission of an expenditure 
plan and budget details 

00,000 in the Program Income Capital Projects 
Pool, to be used to fund American with Dis 
Act improvements for Brooks Hall, pending 
submission of budget det;i 

Approval of funding in the amount of $4,204,827 for new 
or expanded programs is a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervise 

Approve funding in the amount of $29,516,302, 
including CDBG and Program Income programs, for 
existing programs for which the recommended budget 
for FY" 2000-2001 was unchanged from the FY 1999- 
2000 budget. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 7 - File 00-0424 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance and Labor Committee at its meeting 
of April 5, 2000. 

Department: Department of Public Health (DPH) 

Item: Ordinance amending Part III of the San Francisco 

Municipal Code (Business and Tax Regulation Code) by 
amending Section 249.11 to revise permit fees for 
temporary food operations at special events; amending Part 
II of the San Francisco Municipal Code (Traffic Code) by 
amending Section 806 to revise Department of Public 
Health permit fees for food operations at street fairs; 
amending Part II of the San Francisco Municipal Code 
(Health Code) by amending Sections 451 and 452 to: (a) 
reorganize the section on applying for permits to operate a 
food establishment, (b) modify the definition of "special 
events," (c) change the deadline for applications for 
temporary food permits for special events, and (d) impose 
an extra fee for late applications for temporary permits. 

Description: As the local health enforcement agency, the DPH has the 

authority to enforce the California Uniform Retail Food 
Facilities Law (CURFFL). In this role, the DPH. 
Environmental Health Section's Special Events program 
issues permits and inspects businesses that sponsor or 
conduct temporary food or beverage sales or distributions. 
Activities associated with this oversight role include 
reviewing permit application and food preparation, issuing 
required permits, conducting routine and follow up 
inspections, and providing outreach to businesses to assure 
compliance with CURFFL. Regulated businesses currently 
pay fees to the city based upon the number of temporary 
food booths per day of operation. 

The current San Francisco Municipal Code sets forth 
procedures to apply to the Department of Public Health for 
food preparation and service establishment permits. The 
Municipal Code also requires a temporary food service 
permit to serve food at special events including streel fairs, 
and sets forth fees ami deadlines for permit applica 
and for the permits themsi Lves. 

The proposed amendment would, beginning FY 2000-2001, 
(1) increase DPH's filing fee for the sponsor of a "s] 
event" at which food will be served, including streel fairs. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



(2) establishes new application and permit fees for 
temporary food permits for special events based on the 
classification of food being served as either "high" (prepared 
on site) or "low"(pre-packaged) in potential health hazard; 

(3) increase filing, application, and permit fees by 3% each 
year beginning FY 2001-2002 -ubject to prior review by the 
Controller, submission of program costs by DPH. and a 
report to the Board of Supervisors that details program 
costs and anticipated revenues; (4) modify the definition of 
"special events 1 " to be slightly more inclusive for purposes 
of temporary food permit applications; (5) impose a 50% 
late charge if applications and filing fees for temporary food 
permits are n red by the DPH by at least 14 days 
before the event, and forecloses approval of applications if 
those applications and filing (eea are not received prior to 
seven days before the event, and (6) reorganize the 
applicable Municipal Code sections on applications for food 
service permits, including temporary food permits to 
accommodate the changes above. 

According to DPH. the permit fees are intended to fully 
recover the cost of this program. The Board of Supervisors 
last increased the program fees for Special Events in July 
of 198 - ■ cording to Mr. James Gillen, Senior 

Administrative Analyst at DPH. the revenues from Special 
Event fees realized by the City have consistently been less 
than the I - incurred in connection with such events. 

Attachment I, provided by DPH. contains a fist of all 
current fees applicable to this legislation. Including the 
existing fees, the proposed fees, the amount of the proposed 
fee increases, the percentage fee increases, the amount of 
the current annual revenues, and the amount of the 
proposed annual revenues if the proposed fee increases are 
approved. As noted in Attachment I. the total increase in 
fee revenue would be 187 percent if this proposed ordinance 
is approved. 



1 The current Section 249.11 of the Municipal Code reads: "Special Events' means any organized 
collection of food purveyors operating individually or as a group from within temporary faculties for 
a maximum 25 days within a 90-day period upon private or public property." The new ordinance 
would read: "Special Events' means any organized collection of food purveyors operating individually 
or collaboratively out of approved temporary or mobile food facilities at a fixed location for a period of 
time not to exceed 25 days in a 90-day period in conjunction with a single, weekly, or monthly 
community event as defined in the California Health and Safety Code Section 113895ih)." 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Comments: 



1. Attachment II, provided by DPH, details the City's FY 
2000-2001 costs for regulation of temporary food operations 
at special events which are projected to be $173,185, or 
$1,805 less than the projected revenues of $174,990. 
According to Mr. Gillen, if revenues exceed costs, DPH will 
make an adjustment to its proposed annual request for a 
three percent fee increase. DPH will request an adjusted 
rate of increase to ensure that program revenues closely 
match program costs. Based on the data presented in 
Attachments I and II, total projected FY 2000-2001 
expenditures of $173,185 would exceed revenues based on 
current fees by $112,198 if this proposed ordinance is not 
approved ($173,185 in expenditure less $60,507 in revenue 
based on current fees). 



2. Attachment III, provided by DPH. contains a list of the 
counties that were surveyed by DPH for their fee structures 
regarding temporary food operations. According to Mr. 
Gillen, these counties were surveyed to provide a basis for 
comparison, and to ensure that, relative to other counties, 
the fees required by the City and County of San Francisco 
would not be excessive. 



Recommendation: 



3. According to Mr. Gillen, annual fee increases of up to 
three percent would be reviewed by the Controller, and 
reported to the Board of Supervisors. As such, separate 
Board of Supervisors approval of future fee increases would 
not be required. If the proposed ordinance is approved, new 
fee revenues would be included in DPH's FY 2000-2001 
budget. 

Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for 
the Board of Supervisors. . 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment I 



Table 2. Current (99-00) and Proposed (00-01) Fee Schedule 



Estimated Current Proposed 
Inventor/ Fees Fees 



Percent 
Increase/Decrease 



Proposed 
Revenue/Year 



Application Fees: 

1. Event Sponsor 

2. Sponsored Low 
Hazard Operator 

3. Sponsored High 
Hazard Operator 

4. Unsponsored 
LowHazard 
Operator 

5. Unsponsored 
High Hazard 
Operator 

Permit Fees 

6. Low Hazard 
Operation 



High Hazard 
Operation 



Total Fee Revenue 



210 

369 

1116 

41 



S50 

No 
Charge 

No" 
Charge 

S50 



S50 



S100 


100% 


S21,000/year 


S20 




S7,380/year 


S46 


N/A 


S5 i,336/year 


S20 


(6<? 


S320/year 


S^6 




S5,704/vear 



S25 r : 


S3 5 ud to 2 




days 


S10 each 


S 1 each 


dav 


dav 


S25 l s: 


S60 up to 2 


dav/ 


davs 


S 1 each 


S20 each 


day 




S6C987 





40° 



■ 









S72,600/year 



Attachment __ 



Table 1. Projected FY 2000-01 Special Events Program Costs 
Budget Category FTE Annual Expense 

6122 Sr. Health Inspector 
6120 Health Inspector 
6 124 Principal Health Inspector 
1426 Clerk Typist 
Mandatory Fringe Benefits 
Prorated operating costs 
Projected Program Total Cost 

Annual Fees Collected 

Expected Costs Not Recovered 

Projected Fees Collected FY 00/01 

Projected Over-Collection 



0.96 


75,695 


0.31 


22.720 


0.15 


12,724 


0.25 


10,727 




30,466 




20.S54 




5173,185 




S 60,987 




S112.198 




SI 74.990 




S 1,805 



Attachment III 









O — 



— - J^ 






5! 3 

a = a 



~ "5 >> 



S a — — ;- 



- 



u 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 8 - File 00-0565 



Department: 
Item: 



Department of Human Resources (DHR) 

Ordinance fixing compensation for persons 
employed by the City and County of San Francisco 
whose compensation is subject to the provisions of 
Section A 8.4U9 of the Charter, in classes not 
represented by an employee organization and 
establishing working schedules and conditions of 
employment and methods of payment, effective 
Julv 1, 2000. 



Description: 



The proposed ordinance would fix compensation 
levels and establish working schedules and 
conditions of employment for the 85 classifications, 
identified m Attachment I. which consists of a total 
of 158 employees not represented by an employee 
organization. Of these 158 employees, 37 are 
management employees and 121 are non- 
management employees. Such compensation levels 
and working schedules are set by ordinance 
annually for Unrepresented employees, including 
positions designated as "A" or unclassified 
positions, and various other positions. The 
proposed ordinance is for the one-year period from 
Julv 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001. 



The changes in the proposed ordinance from FY 
1999-2000 to FY 2000-01 are as follows: 

Section 2 - Wage Rates 

For FY 1999-2000, the wage rates for the 
employees covered by this ordinance were increased 
by two percent effective July 1, 1999 and another 
1.5 percent effective December 25, 1999. Under the 
proposed ordinance. Unrepresented employee wage 
rates for FY 2000-01, except as noted below, would 
be increased by an additional two percent effective 
July 1, 2000 and another 1.5 percent on January 6, 



The proposed ordinance would also increase the 
salary range for the Supervising Performance 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Auditor classification (Classification 1801), which 
covers two positions, by 7.4 percent (the two 
percent increases other covered employees would 
receive plus an additional 5.4 percent), from the 
existing $2,166 - $2,632 biweekly to $2,326 -$ 2,827 
biweekly effective July 1, 2000 (See Comment 2). 
At the top step, and including the additional 1.5 
percent increase in January of 2001, the 1801 
Supervising Performance Auditors would be paid 
136 in FY 2000-01. In addition, the proposed 
ordinance states that the salary for the Director of 
the Employee Relations Division (Classification 
L283) shall not be less than Classification 1278 the 
Division Manager. Personal, effective July 1, 2000 
(See Commeiv 

The proposed ordinance also deletes the biweekly 
ilary rate-, for all of the Executive Assistant 
classifications covered by this ordinance (See 
Commenl I) 

Section 38 - Severance Pay 

Currently, the City must provide up to 30 days of 
nee pay for employees in AC01 Executive 
Assistant I through AC22 Executive Assistance 
XXII positions, if the number of days from the date 
notice was given was less than 30 and if the 
employee is involuntarily removed and the 
employee does not have "bumpim: nsht.-" The 
proposed ordinance would delete this severance pay 
provision (See Comment 4). 

Various Sections 

The proposed ordinance also includes various 
changes to reflect updates to previously approved 
Charter Amendments, corrections for titles and 
dates and other clerical revisions for clarity. 

Comments: 1. According to Ms. Alice Villagomez of ERD. the 

proposed wage in< : two percent on July 1. 

2000 and another 1.5 percent on January 6, 2001 is 
being proposed for the Unrepresented employees 
because this is the same wage increases that other 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 19. 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

City craft workers, Local 21 employees and most 
other miscellaneous, non-uniformed employees in 
the City have been previously authorized by the 
Board of Supervisors to receive in FY 2000-01. 

2. Ms. T anet Rogers of DHR advises that the 
proposed increase in salary of 7.4 percent for the 
1801 Supervising Performance Auditors, includes 
the overall two percent wage increase for all 
Unrepresented employees as of July 1, 2000. 
According to Ms. Rogers, this 7.4 percent increase 
is intended to restore the same wage rates for both 
the 1801 Supervising Performance Auditor and the 
1686 Supervising Auditor positions, which Ms. 
Rogers advises are comparable positions within the 
Controller's Office. Ms. Rogers reports that the 
1686 Supervising Auditors are currently 
represented by Local 21 and are paid at this higher 
wage scale. 

3. In addition, Ms. Rogers advises that the 
language requiring that the salary of the 1283, 
Director of the Employee Relations Division not be 
less than the 1278, Division Manager, Personnel is 
proposed in order to maintain the historical pay 
relationship between these two classifications. 
Currently, the Director of the Employee Relations 
Division is paid $104,512 at the top step, which will 
increase by an overall 2.4 percent to $106,989 at 
the top step in FY" 2000-01, under the proposed 
ordinance. Currently, the 1278, Division Manager, 
Personnel is paid $100,511 at the top step. 
However, Ms. Rogers advises that the 1278, 
Division Manager, Personnel position is currently 
represented by the Management Executive 
Association (MEA), which has not yet determined 
those classifications thai will receive additional 
internal salary adjustments for FY' 2000-01. 
Although the proposed ordinance does not specify 
how much the Director of the Employee Relations 
Division would be paid, Ms. Roger- advises that if 
the Division Manager, Personnel receives pay 
increases which result in a higher salary than the 
amount paid to the Director of the Empl 
Relations Division, then the Director - -alary would 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meet inn 

be increased to the same level as the Division 
Manager. Personnel. The Budget Analyst notes 
that currently the Director of the Employee 
Relations Division is paid 4.0 percent more than 
the Division Manager, Personnel. 

4. According to Ms. Rogers, in response to requests 
by the Mayors Office, the 22 different Executive 
Assistant classifications (AC01 Executive Assistant 
I through AC22 Executive Assistant XXII) were 
created in last year- Unrepresented employees 
ordinance. Ms. Roger- advises that the proposed 
ordinance deletes the specific biweekly salary rates 
for all of these Executr. at classifications 
because these salaries would now be listed in the 
City's Compensation Manual, ranging between 
$1,271 biweekly ($33,046 annually) for an 
Executive Assistant >3 biweekly ($148,018 
annually) for an Executi tant XXII at the 
top step, effective July 1, 2000. Ms. Rogers advises 
that none of these Executive Assistant 
classifications are currently filled positions. Ms. 
Rogers further advises that the severance pay 
provisions for these Executive Assistant 
classifications are deleted in the proposed 
ordinance because none of these positions are filled 
and therefore, such severance pay provisions are 
not necessary at this time. 

5. As shown in Attachment II. provided by Ms. Peg 
Stevenson of the Controller's Office, implementing 
the proposed ordinance would result in estimated 
salary, internal adjustments and fringe benefit 
costs of an additional $413,067 for FY 2000-01 and 

16.969 on an annualized basis in FY" 2001-02. for 
a total additional two year cost of $930,036. Based 
on the existing salary base of approximately $11.6 
million for the 158 employees that would be 
affected by the proposed ordinance, this would 
result in an increase of approximately 3.57 percent 
above their base salaries in FY 1999-2000 and an 
additional 0.86 percent in FY 2001 

6. The Budget Analyst concurs with the 
Controller's cost analysis. However, the Budget 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Analyst notes that the actual costs in FY 2001-02 
are likely to be higher than the amounts indicated 
since the proposed ordinance is only effective for 
the one year period from July 1, 2000 through June 
30. 2001, and there is likely to be another 
ordinance next year, further adjusting annual 
compensation for the Unrepresented employees. 

7. Ms. Stevenson advises that the $413,067 
required to pay for these wage and fringe benefit 
increases will be included in the FY 2000-01 
budget, as submitted to the Board of Supervisors. 
The funding source for General Fund-supported 
departments would be the City's General Fund, 
while other Special Fund departments, such as the 
Airport, would use other funding sources to finance 
these increased wage and benefit costs. 

8. A substitute ordinance has been introduced to 
delete language in order that this ordinance will 
not result in any changes to the current procedures 
for retirement contributions. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed substitute ordinance is a 

policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment I 
Pape 1 of 2 



Attachment A 
Miscellaneous Unrepresented Classifications <egcoooi) 

1130 Youth Commission Advisor, Board of Supervisors 

1229 Special Examiner 

1471 Elections Worker 

1801 Supervising Performance Auditor 

1942 Assistant Materials Coordinator 

2561 Optometrist 

2576 Supervising Clinical Psychologist 

2782 Laundry Superintendent 

3238 Dance Instructor 

3438 Tree Topper Supervisor II 

3484 Agricultural Division Land Agent 

3650 Medical Records Librarian 

5264 Airport Noise Abatement Technician 

5502 Project Manager I 

5504 Project Manager II 

5506 Project Manager III 

5630 Water & Power Analyst I 

7369 Apprentice Sheet Metal Worker 

8121 Investigator, Public Transportation Commission 

8168 Parking Hearing Supervisor 

8222 Housing Authority Police Officer 

8247 Emergency Planning Coordinator 

8446 Court Alternative Specialist I 

9132 Transit Fare Inspector 

9914 Public Service Aide - Administration 

9916 Public Service Aide - Public Works 

9920 Public Service Aide - Assistant to Professionals 

9922 Public Service Aide - Associate to Professionals 

A046 Transit Line Manager 

A047 Water Supply Engineer 

A100 Parking Enforcement Supervisor 

A739 Transit Maintenance Manager III 

A805 Telecommunications Systems Director 

A837 Investigative Assistant 

A922 Electronic Instrumentation Assistant Supervisor 

AA37 Executive Assistant to the Assessor 

AA55 Parking Citation Hearing Officer 

AA63 Administrative Secretary, Port 

AA85 Administrative Secretary, Transportation Commission 

AB07 Informaticn Clerk, Parking & Traffic 

AB21 Dual Diagnosis Specialist 

AB26 Director of Taxpayer Assistant 



Attachment 1 
Page 2 of 2 



AB27 Secretary, Commission on the Environment 

AB80 Principal Public Defender's Investigator 

AC01 Executive Assistant I 

AC02 Executive Assistant II 

AC03 Executive Assistant III 

AC04 Executive Assistant IV 

AC05 Executive Assistant V 

AC06 Executive Assistant VI 

AC07 Executive Assistant VII 

AC08 Executive Assistant VIII 

AC09 Executive Assistant IX 

AC10 Executive Assistant X 

AC1 1 Executive Assistant XI 

AC1 2 Executive Assistant XII 

AC23 Public Safety Wire Communications Program Manager 

AC24 Secretary, Port Commission 

Management Unrepresented Classifications (egc. 

1283 Director, Employee Relations Division 

1293 Human Resources Director 

1379 Special Assistant XX 

1849 Mayor's Program Manager 

2953 Chief Deputy Director, Department of Human Services 

2978 Contract Compliance Officer II 

55Q.8 Project Manager IV 

8137 Chief/Victim Witness Investigator 

9252 Airport Maintenance Superintendent 

A006 Parking Bureau Chief 

A114 MIS Manager 

A827 Airport Parking Manager 

A919 Construction Contract Administration 

AA81 Executive Director, Ethics Commission 

AB29 Business & Economic Development Director 

AB31 Executive Director, Department of the Environment 

AB44 Confidential Chief Attorney II, (Civil & Criminal) 

AC13 Executive Assistant XIII 

AC14 Executive Assistant XIV 

AC15 Executive Assistant XV 

AC16 Executive Assistant XVI 

AC17 Executive Assistant XVII 

AC18 Executive Assistant XVIII 

AC 19 Executive Assistant IXX 

AC20 Executive Assistant XX 

AC21 Executive Assistant XXI 

AC22 Executive Assistant XII 



0002) 



Apr-12-00 05:08pm From-CCSF CONTROLLER OFFICE +415-554-7466 Attachment II 

pv -e 1 ot 2 

\il CITY Aft) COUNTY OF SA.N FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CONTROLL E 

Edward Hurnngu 
ControUi 

Matthew H. Hym 
Chief Assistant Controlli 




April 11,2000 



Ms. Gloria L. Young, Clerk of the Board 

Board of Superv: sors 

Ciry Hall. Roorr 244 

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, C A 94102 



Il£: Ordinance Fixing Compensaaon for Unrepresented Employees 
File No. 00-0565 

Dear Ms. Younj;: 

In accordance with Ordinance 92-94, I am submitting a cost analysis of an ordinance fixing compensation 
for unrepresented employees of the City and County of San Francisco. The ordinance covers the period 
July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001, and affects approximately 158 employees with a salary base of 
approximately $11.6 million. 

Based on our analysis, the ordinance will result in incremental costs of approximately $413,000 in FY 
2000-2001 and :il04,000 in FY 2001-2002. These increments represent cost increases above base salaries 
of approximate: y 3.57% in FY 2000-2001 and .86% in 2001-2002. Please see Attachment A for specific 
cost estimates. 

If you have an^ additional questions or concerns please contact me at 554-7500 or Peg Stevenson of my 
staff at 554-752 2. 



Sincerely, 




<A 



Edward M. Hai 
Controller 




Vicki Rambo, ERD 

Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst 



415-S54-75O0 City Hall • 1 Dr. Carlion B. GoodUtt Place • Room 316 • San Knincteco Ca SM102-1694 Fi\ »l5-554-7* 



Apr-12-00 05:08pm From-CCSF CONTROLLER OFFICE +415-554-7466 Attachment II 

Page 2 &l '2 



Attachment A 

Unrepresented Employees Ordinance 
Estimated Costs 2:000-2001 
Controller's Office 



Annual lncremenl . il Costs/fSavinqs) FY 2000-2001 FY 2001-2002' 

Wage Increase 

2% on July 1,2000 and 1.5% on January 1,2001 $318,314 $90,099 

Internal Adjustments 39,877 

Wage-Related Fringe Increases 54,875 13.S03 

Total Estimated Incremental Costs 413,067 103.902 

Annual Amount /ibove 1999-2000 Level 413,067 516,969 

Cumulative Total Above 1999-2000 Provisions $930,035 

Incremental Cosi % of Salary Base 3.57% 0.86% 



1 Amount shown is due to annualization of the prior year's wage increase. 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 9 - File 00-0524 
Department: 

Item: 

Comment: 
Recommendation: 



Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 
Hetch Hetchy Water and Power 

Resolution authorizing the expenditure of funds for 
emergency repair of corrosion in the San Joaquin Pipeline 
No. 3 of the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct. 

Mr. Larry Klein of the PUC has requested that the 
proposed resolution be continued for one week. 

Continue this resolution for one week as requested by Mr. 
Klein. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 10 - File 00-0568 

Department: Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 

Item: Resolution authorizing a new 20-year lease of 

Public Utilities Commission land between the City 
and County of San Francisco and the Koret 
Foundation, in San Mateo County. 

Location: Portion of Parcel 22, Baden-Merced Bay Division 

Pipeline Right of Way, City of South San Francisco, 
San Mateo County, California 

Purpose of Lease: Paved parking lot, driveway, and landscaped area 

to be used by the Lessee's (Koret Foundation's) 
adjacent apartment complex. 

Lessor: City and County of San Francisco through the 

Public Utilities Commission 

Lessee: Koret Foundation 

No. of Square Feet and 
Rent Per Month: 41,817 square feet of land. However, the rent is 

based on only 11,650 square feet of leaseable land 
at $1,101 per month, or $0,095 per square foot of 
leaseable land per month ($13,211 annually). See 
Comment No. 2 for additional details. 

Annual Rent Payable 

By Koret Foundation 

To the City: $13,211. This annual rent would be adjusted 12 

months after the commencement date of the lease, 
and then readjusted every 12 months thereafter, by 
the annual percentage increase in the Consumer 
Price Index (CPI). In accordance with the proposed 
lease, the monthly base rent on or after the 
adjustment date cannot be less than the monthly 
base rent in effect immediately prior to the 
adjustment date. 

In addition, the base rent would be adjusted to 
equal the fair market rental of such property every 
five years. This adjustment would be determined by 
the Public Utilities Commission's Bureau of 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Increase (Decrease) 
in Rent: 



Term of Lease: 

Right of Renewal: 
Description: 



Comments: 



Commercial Land Management, using a market 
survey approach, in consultation with the 
Department of Real Estate. The adjustment would 
take into account (a) land values in the general 
vicinity of the City of South San Francisco (b) the 
location and size of the premises covered by leases 
of comparable space, and (c) the duration of the 
comparable leases. As noted above, the annual base 
rent on or after the adjustment date cannot be less 
than the annual base rent in effect immediately 
prior to the adjustment date. 



Under the proposed lease the annual rent on the 
subject PUC property would increase from the 
previous rent of $8,280 annually to $13,211 
annually, an increase of $4,931, or 59.6 percent. 
See Comment No. 3 for details. 

The proposed lease between the PUC and the Koret 
Foundation would commence upon approval by the 
Board of Supervisors and would expire 20 years 
thereafter (approximattly May of 2020). 

None. 

The proposed resolution would authorize a 20-year 
lease of 41,817 square feet of PUC property for use 
as a paved parking area with a driveway and 
landscaping for the Lessee's adjoining apartment 
complex. 

1. Mr. Gary Dowd of the PUC reports that the 
subject PUC parcel is landlocked by the Lessee's 
property and thus the PUC parcel has no use to 
any other property owner and is not available for 
independent development. According to Mr. Dowd, 
when the PUC originally purchased the subject 
property in 1907. the original owner who sold the 
property to the PUC reserved agricultural 
(landscaping) and cross over (access) right 
privileges for the adjoining properties in the grant 
deed. Mr. Dowd advises that the original deed 
therefore requires the PUC to permit the adjoining 
property owner to continue to allow agricultural 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

and access rights on the PUC's property, at no 
charge. 

2. Of the total 41,817 square feet of space under the 
proposed lease, 30,167 square feet, or 
approximately 72 percent of the area would be 
exclusively used for agricultural (landscaping) and 
crossover (driveway) purposes only. The remaining 
11,650 square feet, or approximately 28 percent of 
the area, would be used for a paved parking lot. Mr. 
Dowd advises that the PUC measured the uses that 
were not strictly for landscaping and driveway 
purposes to determine the amount of square 
footage for which the subject lease could be 
charged. Therefore, although the subject lease is for 
the entire 41,817 square feet of space, only 11,650 
square feet of space, which would be used for the 
parking lot, is subject to the rental rate of $1,101 
per month (approximately $0,095 per square foot of 
leaseable land per month) or $13,211 annually. 

3. Mr. Dowd advises that the Koret Foundation 
previously held a 9-year lease for the subject 
property, for the same landscaping, driveway and 
parking lot purposes that are proposed under the 
subject new lease. However, Mr. Dowd reports that 
during the approximate six years since this 9-year 
lease expired in September of 1994, the Koret 
Foundation has leased the subject property on a 
month-to-month basis. Furthermore, Mr. Dowd 
advises that the PUC and the Koret Foundation 
recently completed involved and time-consuming 
negotiations over the subject lease. According to 
Mr. Dowd, the rent under the previous month-to- 
month hold over was $690 per month, or $0,059 per 
square foot of the 11,650 square feet of leaseable 
land per month ($8,280 annually.) Mr. Dowd 
advises that the previous lease and month-to- 
month hold over did not contain provisions for 
market rental rate revaluations and ini 
although Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustments 
were included. 

5. According to Mr. Dowd. the proposed annual 
rental rate of $13,211 reflects the current fair 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

market rental rate for the subject property. In 
addition, as previously noted, Mr. Dowd advises 
that the proposed lease contains several provisions 
for revaluation and rent adjustments for the 
subject property lease. 

5. As noted above, the PUC has leased the subject 
property to the Koret Foundation on a month-to- 
month hold over basis since 1994, approximately 6 
years ago. According to Mr. Dowd, over the course 
of the past four years, the PUC has been 
renegotiating all of PUC's leases and permits that 
were previously issued, on a priority basis, with the 
larger revenue generating leases and permits 
addressed first, followed by PUC's smaller 
transactions, such as the subject l<-ase. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 11 - File 00-0484 



Department: 



Item: 



Location: 
Purpose of Lease: 

Lessor: 



Lessee: 

No. of Sq. Ft. and 
Cost Per Month: 



Annual Cost: 



Utilities and Janitor 
Provided by Lessor: 

Term of Lease: 

Right of Renewal: 

Source of Funds: 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 
Department of Human Services (DHS) 
Department of Real Estate (DRE) 

Resolution authorizing and approving a new Master 
Lease by and between the City and County of San 
Francisco, for the Department of Public Health, as tenant, 
and Hotel Le Nain, LLC, as landlord, for the "Hotel Le 
Nain" located at 730 Eddy Street, San Francisco. 

"Hotel Le Nain", 730 Eddy Street, San Francisco. 

To provide 92 residential dwellings for approximately 115 
subtenants under the "Direct Access to Housing" Program 
(see "Description" below). 

Hotel Le Nain, LLC, a California limited liability 
company. 

City and County of San Francisco, on behalf of DPH. 



60,000 square feet at a monthly rent of $38,500 
(approximately $0.64 per square foot) during Year One of 
the subject lease (see Comment No. 7 for the annual rent 
adjustment formula). 

$462,000 in Year One of the subject lease. Annual rental 
costs in subsequent years would be subject to the annual 
rent adjustment formula explained in Comment No. 7. 



None 

Ten years (May 1. 2000 to April 30, 2010). 

None 

According to Mr. Marc Trotz of DPH. $160,000 has been 
budgeted in FY* 1999-2000 by DPH for "Hotel Le Nam" 
start-up and operations costs. Ms. Monique Xnual. 
DPH states that a funding proposal for the "Hotel Le 
Nain" in the amount of $640,400 from the General Fund 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



has been included in the DPH's proposed FY 2000-2001 
budget 1 . According to Ms. Taylor Emerson of the Mayor's 
Budget Office, DPH's funding proposal for $640,400 from 
the General Fund in FY' 2000-2001 for Hotel Le Nain 
operating costs has been developed by the Mayor's Budget 
Office. 



Description: 



The subject master lease 2 would permit DPH to lease 
60,000 square feet of the "Hotel Le Nain", a residential 
class tourist hotel located at 730 Eddy Street, San 
Francisco, for ten years in order to sublease residential 
units to individuals eligible for assistance from DPH's 

Direct Access to Housing" Program. This program is 
designed to secure affordable, community-based housing 
for homeless and extremely low-income San Fran : 
residents by having the City or a nonprofit organization 
lease privately owned buildings and then sublease 
residential units in those buildings to individuals who (a) 
are medically frail, and/or (b) are at risk of homelessness, 
and/or (c) have recently exited homeless shelters or 
residential treatment programs, and (d) are capable of 
living independently with on-site support services. Mr. 
Trotz states that the "Hotel Le Nain" would particularly 
get homeless seni' rding to Mr. Trotz. the 

Hotel Le Nun" would be the third residential building to 
be leased by the City for the "Direct Access to Hous; 
Program. The first was the Pacific Bay Inn. located at 
520 Jones Street, and the second was the Windsor Hotel, 
located at 238 Eddy Street, both of which are already 
occupied by DPH clients. DHS also operates three 
equivalent residential faciln 



Comments: 



1. The "Hotel Le Nain" is currently used as a residential 
and tourist hotel. Of the 92 units. 50 are currently 
occupied. Mr. Trotz states that DPH would lease the 
entire building and property, with the exception of a 
portion of the ground floor space of the building, and DPH 
would accept all existing tenants. DPH clients would 
move into those 50 units as thev become available 



1 A FY 2000-2001 budget appropriation of S640.400 would fund the difference between 
projected Hotel Le Nain annual rent payments of S408.000 and total estimated expenditures 
of 51,048,400 (see Comment Xo. 8). 

- This "master lease" structures the lease so that the DPH assumes full responsibility for the 
day-to-day operations, maintenance, and repair of the Hotel Le Nam. rather than sharing 
that responsibility with the building owner. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

through attrition. Mr. Trotz states that there would be no 
time limit placed on the length of DPH clients' residency 
at the hotel. According to Mr. Trotz, the building is in 
such good physical condition that DPH would only need to 
invest in some minor accessibility improvements. Ms. 
Zmuda states that the cost of such improvements is 
estimated to be approximately $75,000 which would be 
funded from FY 1999-2000 DHS funds set aside for 
housing services. 

2. According to Ms. Zmuda, DPH plans to enter into a 
sole source contract with a nonprofit agency, Episcopal 
Community Services (ECS), for: 

• property management services, at an estimated 
annual cost of $386,400 (as shown in Comment No. 4 
below); and 

• delivery of a range of on-site support services for 
mental health, life skills development, crisis 
intervention, access to medical care, and meals, at an 
estimated annual cost of $200,000 (as shown in 
Comment No. 5 below). 

The sources of funds for these annual contractual costs of 
$586,400 ($386,400 plus $200,000) would be (a) tenant 
rental revenues, and (b) the General Fund (see Comment 
No. 8). 

3. Ms. Zmuda states that DPH plans to enter into a sole 
source contract with ECS because when DPH issued two 
Requests for Proposals for supportive housing services in 
the Spring of 1999, it received no bidders for the Windsor 
Hotel and only one bidder, ECS, for the Pacific Bay Inn. 
Mr. Trotz advises that this lack of response was due to 
non-profit organizations' unfamiliarity with providing a 
combination of both property management services and 
supportive residential services. Most non-profit 
organizations provide either one type of service or the 
other. Ms. Zmuda states that ECS has a very positive 
performance record. This is demonstrated, accordinf 
Mr. Trotz. by DPrTs contracts with ECS for (a) 
administration of DPJTs Pacific Bay Inn residential 
facility, and (b) supportive housing units for the homi 

;n the ECS-owned Canon Kip Community House. 
Furthermore, ECS operates the Episcopal Sanctuary, a 

ROARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

homeless shelter on Eighth Street, which provides 
temporary accommodation for homeless seniors who 
would be eligible for permanent housing at the Hotel Le 
Nain, thereby ensuring continuity of care, according to 
Mr. Trotz. 

4. According to Mr. Trotz, the estimated annual property 
management services contract cost with ECS of $386,400 
would be expended as foil' 



Expenditure Item 


Estimated Cost 


Property management costs 


$154,000 


t Utilities 


75.000 


Furniture and equipment 


11.400 


Maintenance, services, and repairs 


80,000 


Processing fees and credit reports for 


6.000 


new tenants 




Maintenance supplies 


30.000 


TOTAL: 


$386,400 



Mr Trotz states that these cost estimates are based on (a) 
applying DPH's previous experience in contracting out the 
property management of residential hotels to the Hotel Le 
Nam. and lb) the actual known operating costs of the 

Le Nam. 

\ccording to Mr. Trotz. the estimated on-site support 
services contract cost with ECS of $200,000 would be 
expended on staffing costs as follows: 



Expenditure Item 


Estimated Cost 

S35.000 
45.000 
45.000 
30,000 
45.000 

S200.000 


Program Director (0.5 FTE) 
Activities Co-ordinator 
Case Manager 
Nurse (0.5 FTE) 
Social Worker 

TOTAL: 



The attachment, provided by Mr. Trotz. provides further 
budget details about this proposed expenditure of (a) 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

$386,400 for property management services, and (b) 
$200,000 for on-site support services. 

6. Under the subject lease, DPH would be responsible for 
the cost of maintenance or repair of major systems (such 
as the elevator, and the heating, ventilation, air 
conditioning, electrical, and plumbing systems) if such 
maintenance or repairs (a) cost up to $5,000 per 
maintenance or repair obligation, up to an annual cap of 
$15,000, or (b) were the result of DPH or subtenant 
negligence, misconduct, or vandalism. ECS would be 
responsible for the full cost of routine maintenance and 
repair of non-major systems and facilities, including 
monthly pest control services. 

7. Under the subject lease, on each anniversary of the 
lease commencement date, the rental rate would increase 
by the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index 
(CPI) for the San Francisco Metropolitan Area, provided 
that the percentage increase shall not be less than 3.5 
percent nor more than 6 percent. 

8. According to Mr. Trotz, the total cost of operating the 
"Hotel Le Nain" in Year One of the proposed lease would 
be as follows: 

Annual rent: $462,000 

Contract for property management services: 386.400 

Contract to provide on-site services: 200.000 

Total Expenditures: $1,048,400 

Mr. Trotz states that this total operating cost of 
$1,048,400 in Year One would be met by the following 
funding sources: 

Existing tenants' rent payments $240,000 

(50 rooms x $400 per month x 12 months) 

DPH client tenants' rent payments 3 : lCS.OOO 

(40 rooms x $350 per month x L2 months) 

New DPH General Fund allocation: 640.400 

Total Revenues: $1,048,400 



3 DPHclienttenantswouldberequiredtopayapproxim.it at of their incon 

rent. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

9. Ms. Zmuda states that a funding proposal for the 
"Hotel Le Nam" in the amount of $640,400 from the 
General Fund has been included in the DPH's proposed 
FY 2000-2001 budget. Mr. Trotz states that the proposed 
lease contains a termination clause (Section 3.4) which 
permits the City to terminate the lease for any reason 
upon 180 days prior written notice. This would permit 
the City to terminate the lease in six months in the event 
of non-appropriation of the necessary operating funds. 

10. There are currently approximately 73 existing 
tenants occupying 50 of the hotel's 92 rooms, some of 
which are occupied by two tenants. These existing 
truants currently pay, on average, $400 in monthly rent 
per room, or $4,800 per room per year. The remaininj 
rooms would be rented to individual DPH client tenants 
who would pay a standard rental rate of $350 in monthly 
rent per room, or approximately > 1.200 per room per 
year 1 . As existing tenants leave and are replaced by DPH 
client tenants, rental revenue will decrease from an 

rage of $400 per room per month to an average of 
$350. However, according to Mr. Trot/, attrition of 
('\i>tiiiL r tenants is likely to be very slow (he estimates 
that only two existing tenants will leave each year) and, 
therefore, the $50 monthly differential between the rent 
paid by an existing tenant and the rent which would be 
paid by a DPH client would only have a minor impact on 
overall rental revenues. If two existing tenants left two 
hotel rooms vacant each year thereby allowing 
replacement occupancy by two DPH clients, annual rental 
revenues would only decrease by an average of $1,200 
each year. Ms. Zmuda advises that this estimated 
differential would be absorbed by DPH*s housing unit 
budget which is funded by Federal and private foundation 
grants, and the General Fund. 

11. The proposed lease includes a clause "indemnifying 
and holding harmless the Landlord from, and agreeing to 
defend the Landlord against, any and all claims, costs and 
expenses, including without limitation, reasonable 
attorney's fees, incurred as a result of City's use of the 
premises, any default by the City in the performance of 



4 The flat rate of $350 per month is based on 40 of the 42 available units being rented to 
DPH clients at any one time, thereby allowing for vacancies between tenants, according to 
Mr. Trotz. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

any of its obligations under the Master Lease, or any acts 
or omissions of City, its agents or its subtenants in, on or 
about the premises or property on which the premises are 
located." According to Ms. Amy Brown of the City 
Attorney's Office, these waivers are standard and pose 
minimal additional risk to the City. This provision would 
require the City to defend and pay damages assessed 
against the Lessor arising out of negligence by the City in 
the performance of the proposed contract. The City has 
entered into other agreements which include similar 
indemnification provisions and waivers, and the risk of 
additional liability to the City is minimal, according to 
Ms. Brown. 

12. Mr. Mark Zuffo of DRE states that the proposed rent 
represents fair market value. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



APR- 13-2000 07:33 



DPH HOUSING 



Attachment 



|LE NA1N HOTEL -SERVICES AND OPERATIONS BUDGET 




Support Services 




Annual Budget 


Program Director (.5 FTE) 




35.000 


Activities Coordinator (1 FTE) 




45,000.00 


Case Manager (1 FTE) 




45.000.00 


Nurse (.5 FTE) 




30.000.00 


Social Worker (1 FTE) 




45.000.00 


Sub Total 




200.000.00 


Property Management Services 






Admin/Bookeeper ( 1 FTE) 




45.000.00 


Janitor/Maintenance (1 FTE) 




30,000.00 


Nightime Security (.25 FTE) 




15,000.00 


Front Desk Clerk (1. FTE) 




30.000.00 


Admin/Bookecpcr (1 FTE) 




34,000.00 


Sub Total 




154,000.00 


Operations 






Utilities 




75.000.00 


Electicity/Gas 


36,000.00 




H20/sewer 


24,000.00 




Elevator Monthly Service 


2,400.00 




Termite Control Service 


1,500.00 




Garbage Collection 


5,700.00 




Telephone Service 


5,400.00 




Subtotal 


75,000.00 




Furniture & Equipment 




41,400.00 


Desks and Chairs (3 sets) 


3,000.00 




Examination Table 


4,000.00 




Xerox and Fax 


7,500.00 




Sofa and coffee table 


2,500.00 




Matresses and Beds 


15,000.00 




Dressers and chairs 


9,100.00 




Subtotal 


41,100.00 




Mntnce, Services & Repairs 




80.000.00 


Processing Fees/Credit Reprt 




6,000.00 


Maintenance Supplies 




30,000.00 


Sub Total 




232,400.00 




[total 




5X^.400.00 1 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 12 - File 00-0576 



Department: 



Item: 



Recreation and Park Department (RPD) 
Department of Public Works (DPW) 

Ordinance appropriating $984,850 of the 
Neighborhood Development Special Revenue Fund 
balance to fund the proposed Mid-Embarcadero 
Music Concourse, for the Department of Recreation 
and Park. 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Budget: 



$984,850 

Downtown Park Frnd (see Comment No. 6) 

In June of 1998, the Board of Supervisors approved a 
resolution (File No. 98-1096) urging the Planning 
Department, Department of Recreation and Park, 
Department of Public Works, and other relevant City 
departments, to develop a detailed proposal and 
identify funding sources for the construction of a 
music concourse and organ pavilion to be located 
within the open space area created by the demolition 
of the mid-section of Embarcadero Freeway. This 
open space area, which is now known as the Mid- 
Embarcadero Music Concourse site, is bound by 
Market Street to the north, Mission Street to the 
south, Steuart Street to the west, and the 
Embarcadero roadway to the east. 

In July of 1999, the Board of Supervisors adopted a 
resolution , ''approving and authorizing the 
appropriation of up to $984,850 from the Downtown 
Park Special Fund" for landscape improvements to 
the Mid-Embarcadero Music Concourse site (File No. 
99-1222). The Controller's Office is now requesting 
that this matter be brought before the Board of 
Supervisors as an ordinance , rather than a 
resolution, specifying an appropriation of $984,850 
for the Mid-Embarcadero Music Concourse. 

The summary budgel for the proposed project is as 

follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Phase I 


• Architectural and engineering 






services 


$80,000 




• Site construction, including 






preparation, paving, 






construction of retaining 






walls, landscaping, and 






electrical work 


469.112 




• Construction contingency 






(10%) 


46.911 




• DPW costs 


36.530 




Subtotal 




$632,553 


Phase II (estimated) 


• Architectural and engineering 






services 


D00 




• Site construction, including 






precast concrete work, 






electrical work and 


000 




installation of plant 






• Construction conting> 






(10 


)00 




• DPW costs 


37.000 




Subtotal 




349,000 


Project Total 




$981,553 



The attached memorandum, provided by DPW. 
contains an explanation of the proposed budget. The 
proposed budget of $!'- - $3,297 less than the 

requested appropriation of $984,850. The Budget 
Analyst therefore recommends a reduction of the 
requested appropriation b from $984,850 to 

$981." 



Comments: 



1. According to Mr. Steve O'Sullivan of DPW. DPW 
would submit a change order to an existing contract 
with Stacy and Witbeck. Inc.. the contractor which 
submitted the low bid to perform construction work 
on the Mid-Embarcadero project 1 , to perform the 
Phase I construction work. Mr. O'Sullivan states 
that such construction work includes: (a) site 
preparation, including excavation and treatment of 



1 The Mid-Embarcadero project includes roadway improvements, plaza and sidewalk 
construction, concrete and granite work, and landscaping along the Mid-Embarcadero 
roadway. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



potentially hazardous soil, (b) site paving, (c) 
construction of concrete seats and wall, (d) planting 
of lawn, and (e) the installation of lighting fixtures 
within the Mid-Embarcadero Music Concourse site. 

2. DPW has provided the Budget Analyst with a copy 
of the Human Rights Commission letter of 
certification verifying that Stacy and Witbeck, Inc., 
which is a joint venture with Dillingham 
Construction, Inc. to perform construction work on 
the Mid-Embarcadero project, employs 
subcontractors which qualify as Minority and 
Women Owned Business Enterprises. 

3. Mr. O'Sullivan states that DPW would select 
contractors to perform the Phase II construction 
work through a competitive bidding process. Such 
work includes installation of a precast concrete 
railing, installation of planters, and additional 
electrical work. The Budget Analyst recommends 
that $309,000 for Phase II construction costs 
($349,000 less $40,000 for architectural and 
engineering services) be reserved, pending selection 
of a contractor and submission of budget details. 

4. According to Ms. Deborah Learner of RPD. 
architectural and engineering services would be 
performed by Roma Designs, Inc., which was selected 
through a competitive Request for Proposal process 
to perform architectural and engineering services for 
the Mid-Embarcadero project. 

5. Ms. Learner states that the subject construction 
work does not include the construction of an organ 
pavilion. According to Ms. Learner, a pavilion would 
be constructed at a later date and is expected to be 
funded through private donations. 

6. In 1985. the Board of Supervisors amended the 
City's Municipal Code (Planning Code) to add Section 
139. Section 139 established the Downtown Park 
Fund, which provides a source of funds for the 
acquisition and development of public recreation and 
park facilities for the daytime population in 

ROARD OF SUP ERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

downtown San Francisco. According to the Planning 
Code, the Recreation and Park and Planning 
Commissions have the joint responsibility of 
administering and allocating funds from the 
Downtown Park Fund for the acquisition and 
development of public recreation and park facilities. 

The Budget Analyst recommends that the title of the 
subject ordinance be amended, to delete the reference 
from "Neighborhood Development Special Revenue 
Fund" and substitute "Downtown Park Fund". 

7. According to the Controller's Office, as of April 13. 
2000, the balance of the Downtown Park Fund is 
$1,71 .vhich is $780, W4 more than the subject 

appropriation of 5984,850. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed ordinance to delete 
Neighborhood Development Special Revenue Fund" 
and substitute "Downtown Park Fund", as noted in 
Comment No. 6. 

2 Amend the proposed ordinance to reduce the 
appropriation by S3. 297, from S984.850 to $981,553. 

3. Of the $981,553 appropriation, reserve $309,000 
for Phase II construction, as noted in Comment 

3. 

4. Approve the proposed ordinance as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



04-13-00 12:57 F rom-OPW/BOE 

City and County of San Francisco 




Willie Lewis Brown, Jr., Mayor 
Mark A. Primeau, Architect, AIA, Director 



415-553-4519 



Attachment 
Page 1 ot 2 




(415) 558-4021 

FAX (415) 553-4519 

http://www.sfdpw.com 



Department of Public Works 

Project Management Division 

30 Van Ness Avenue, 5 m Floor 

San Francisco, CA 941 02-6020 

Kathryn How. Assistant City Engineer 



MEMORANDUM 



To: Severin Campbell 
3udget Analyst: 

Frcrrt: Steve 0' Sullivan <- -jO 
Project Manager 



Date: April 13, 2000 



RE: 



Mid Embarcadero 
Music Concourse 



As requested, we are providing budget information for the Mid 
Embarcadero Music Concourse. A design had been proposed for the 
Mid Embarcadero Music Concourse by the Recreation and Park 
Department. The Mid Embarcadero Roadway and F-Line Extension 
Project that is currently under construction included some work 
in the proposed Music Concourse site. Stacy and Witbeck, Inc is 
the general contractor for the Mid Embarcadero Project. A 
change order has been proposed for the Mid Embarcadero D roject 
to construct a portion of the Music Concourse work. The change 
order would result in savings since items that would have been 
constructed under the original Mid Embarcadero Project's plans 
would not need to be redone in the near future by the Music 
Concourse Project. Some items that would not be beneficial to 
be constructed at this time are excluded from the proposed 
change order. This includes items with long lead times for 
materials, that would not be available until after the 
completion of the Mid Embarcadero Project. The following is a 
summery of the proposed budget for the Music Concourse. 

Budget for Proposed Change Order to Mid Embarcadero: 

Architectural and Engineering Services $ 80,000 
Construction Change Order to 

Stacy and Witbeck, Inc Contract $ 469,112 

Construction Contingency (10%) $ 45," 

DPW-Bureau of Construction Management Costs $ 2 6, 53C 



Total 



for Proccsed Chance Order Work 



$ 632, 35 2 



•IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN SAN FRANCISCO" We are dedicated .ncwtiuais committed x reamwerx. 
customer ser/ica and centinuevs improvement ,n partnersnip #iv\ t.« community 
Customer Sarvka Team-^crx Continuous Improvement 



04-13-00 12:58 



Frora-DPW/BGE 



415-558-4519 



Severin Campbell 
April 13, 2000 
Page 2 of 2 



Atrachmen-t 
Page 2 ot Z 



The items for the proposed music concourse chat are excluded 
from the proposed change order are the following: 



Electrical Work 
Precast Concrete Work 

Planters 

Total Excluded items 



5110,000 
5 75,000 
$ 25,000 

$220,000 



It should be noted that if these excluded items are packaged 
into a separate construction contract, an increase tc the above 
costs would occur cue to additional mobilization and overhead 
costs that would be incurred by a contractor. This increase is 
estimated at. approximately twelve percent. Thus, the 
construction costs for this work should be increased to 
S247,C00. A proposed budget for the additional work that c 
be constructed at as a second phase wculd be as fellows: 



Architectural and Engineering Services 

Construction 

Construction contingency 

D?W-3ureau of Construct :o3ts 

Total Project Cost for Second Phase Work 



:,ooo 

",000 
S 25,000 
5 27,0C0 

9,000 



1 hope the abeve clarifies the Music Concourse costs. Feel free 
to call me at 558-4047 if you need additional information. 



cc: Fernando Cisnercs, DPW 

Deborah Learner, Rec. Park 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 13 - File 00-0186 



Department: 
Item: 

Description: 



Department of Administrative Services (DAS) 

Hearing to consider applications from various agencies 
participate in the 2000 Joint Annual Fundraising Drive. 



to 



Section 16.93-3 of the Administrative Code requires the 
Department of Administrative Services (a) to review all 
applications from charitable organizations which request to 
participate in the City's Annual Joint Fundraising Drive, and 
(b) to recommend to the Board of Supervisors charitable 
organizations which qualify to participate in the City's Annual 
Joint Fundraising Drive in accordance with criteria set forth in 
Section 16.93-2 of the Administrative Code. 

The Department of Administrative Services reports that it has 
reviewed the applications from nine charitable organizations 
that have applied to participate in the City's 2000 Annual Joint 
Fundraising Drive in accordance with the criteria delineated in 
Section 16.93-2 of the Administrative Code. The Department of 
Administrative Services reports that all nine charitable 
organizations comply with the Section 16.93-2 criteria and 
recommends that all nine organizations be approved to 
participate in the City's 2000 Annual Joint Fundraising Drive. 
The summary of findings reported by the Department of 
Administrative Services is contained in the Attachment to this 
report. 

Section 16.93-4 of the Administrative Code also requires, 
pending final passage by Board of Supervisors (File 00-0479), 
that the Board of Supervisors designate, by resolution, prior to 
May 1, 2000, those agencies that qualify to participate in the 
2000 Annual Joint Fundraising Drive. The nine charitable 
organizations that have applied and been recommended by the 
Department of Administrative Services to participate in the 
City's 2000 Annual Joint Fundraising Drive are as follows: 

• Bay Area Black United Fund, Inc. 

• Community Health Charities of California (formerly 
Combined Health Appeal of California) 

• Earth Share of California (formerly Environmental 
Federation of California. Inc.) 

• Local Independent Charities 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Comments: 



• International Service Agencies 

• Mayor's Fund for the Homeless 

• The San Francisco Youth Fund (formerly the Mayor's 
Youth Fund) 

• United Way of the Bay Area 

• The Mayor's Youth Employment for the Summer Fund 
(for which the Private Industry Council serves as fiscal 
agent) 

1. Section 16.93-1 of the San Francisco Administrative Code 
states that deductions from employee pay warrants for 
charitable organizations shall only be withheld based upon 
authorizations made by employees in the Annual Joint 
Fundraising Drive. 

2. According to Ms. Jill Lerner of DAS, all of the 
organizations listed above participated in the City's 1999 
Annual Joint Fundraising Drive. 

cording to Mr. Ted Lakey of the City Attorney's Office, 
one of the criteria for organizations participating in the 
Annual Joint Fundraising Drive is that the organizations are 
able to receive tax-deductible donation- as verifiable by the 
Internal Revenue Service (IRS). In practice, this means that 
these organizations must either have the IRS 501c3 
certification as non-profit organizations or be government 
agencies. Further, in the event that a participating 
organization has a fiscal agent, it is sufficient that that fiscal 
agent have 501c3 standing or be a government agency, and, 
in that case, it is not necessary that the participating 
organization have 501c3 standing or be a government 
agency. According to Ms. Lerner of DAS, the Private 
Industry Council, which is the fiscal agent for the Mayor's 
Youth Employment for the Summer Fund, meets this 
criterion. 



Recommendation: 



Prepare in and report out a resolution designating the nine 
qualifying charitable organizations, as recommended by the 
Department of Administrative Services, to participate in the 
City's 2000 Annual Joint Fundraising Drive. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 19, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 




Harvev M. Rose 



cc: Supervisor Yee 

Supervisor Bierman 
President Ammiano 
Supervisor Becerril 
Supervisor Brown 
Supervisor Katz 
Supervisor Kaufman 
Supervisor Leno 
Supervisor Newsom 
Supervisor Teng 
Supervisor Yaki 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Legislative Analyst 
Erin McGrath 
Stephen Kawa 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment 
Page 1 ot 4 



SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 

2000 Review of Applications 

To Participate in Annual Joint Fundraising Drive 



SUMMARY OF METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS 

Our review consisted of an examination of the materials provided in File 000136 and 
telephone conversations with representatives from applicant organizations. We were 
advised by Deputy City Attorney Ted Lakey that telephone inquiries were approoriate to 
clarify information supplied by the applicants. This is the same method we have use 
past years to prepare this report to the Board of Supervisors. 

All eight organizations that applied for participation in the 1999 Joint Fundraising Drive 
were in compliance with the criteria established by the Board of Supervisors as 
delineated in the Administrative Code. 

CRITERIA 

Following is a list of the criteria established by the Board of Supervisors and information 
as to how the applicants met each requirement. New legislation enacted in 1997 includes 
in the Annual Joint Fundraising Drive any Mayor's fund which is created to further 
causes. Under Administrative Code Section 16.93-2, only subsections (b), I 
apply to the Mayor's funds. All other agencies must sati.^ : 



Criterion A : Be a federated agency r;-r -.ari table 

organizations of which 50 percent shall represent organizations loc.r 
the counties of Sap. Frarcisco. San Mate. - : ra. Alameda. C 

Costa and Marin. 

According to the City Atton :ounties" n 

indraising or otherwi ties. 

1. Bay Area Black United Fund. Inc. 

Bay Area Black Unil 

which are located in the Bay Ai 

2. Community Hea 

Community Health ( 

which 50 percent or more are ,rea. 



Attachment 
Page 2 of k 



Summary of Findings 

2000 Review of Applications 

Page 2 of 4 



3. Earth Share of California (Environme" r al Federation of California) 

Earth Share of California represents over 75 organizations of which 50 
percent or more are located in the Bay Area. 

4. Local Independent Charities (LIC) 

Local Independent Chanties represents over 150 organizations of which 
50 percent or more are located in the Bay Area. 

5. International Service Agencies (ISA) 

International Service Agencies represents more than 40 charities of which 
50 percent are located in the Bay Area. 

6. United Way of the Bay Area 

United Way of the Bay Area represents 1500 charities. 50 percent of 
which are located in the Bav Area. 



Criterion R- The federated agencv or Mayor's fund must certify to the Board of 

Supervisors that the Federal Internal Revenue Service has determined that 
contributions to ail of the represented charitable organizations or Mayor's 
funds are tax deductible. 

Based on consultation in years past with the City Attorney, we have concluded that al 
applicants complied with this requirement. 



Criterion C: The federated agencv must have been in existence with 10 or more 

qualified charities for at least one vear prior to the date of application 
and provide satisfactory evidence to that effect at the time of filing an 
application uiih the Board. Mayor's funds shall submit their most recent 
financial statement to the Board of Supervisors on an annual ,r wi< 

This criterion wa 



Attachment 
Page 3 of 4 



Summary of Findings 

2000 Review of Applications 

Pase 3 of 4 



Criterion ~^ : The federated agencv must submit its most recent certified audit at 'he 
time of* filing an application with the Br 

All agencies provided these documents, as detailed below: 

I. Bay Area Black United Fund. Inc. provided financial statements dated December 

3 1, 1998 with an accompanying Auditors' Report by Grant & Smith, LLP dated 
MaylS, 1999. 

-. Community Health Charities of California pro', i :;al statements for the 

year ended June 30, 1999 with the Independent Auditors' Report prepared bv 
Rooney. Ida, Nolt and Ahem. CPAs, da:. <99. 

3. Earth Share of California provided a statement of financial position for the 
ended September 30, 1998 and an Auditors's Report dated February 4, 1999 by 
Bregante & Company, LLP. 

4. Local Independent Chanties provided Statements of 

April 30, 1999 along iditor's Report bv Ma.- 

Associates Accountancy Corporation dated October 20. 1999. 

- national Ser. ice Agencies provided financ snts dated June 30, 1999 

and 1998 along with Group, Ch 

ted August 18, 1999. 

6. United Way of the Ba\ .-'. 

and a repon 
Grant Thornton LLP dated Oc: -99. 

Mayor's Homeless F : Code Seel 

10. 1 17-33), pre . ;99. 

Mayor's Youth Empl 

>s its fisca 
staternem 

Auditor's Report b k Companj 

the PIC subr 



Attachment 
Page 4 of 4 



Summary of Findings 

2000 Review of Applications 

Pase 4 of 4 



9. The San Francisco Youth Fund is served by the Every Child Can Learn 

Foundation as its fiscal agent. The Foundation provided financial statements 
dated June 30, 1999 and 1998 and an Independent Auditors report dated August 6 
1999 from Hood & Strong LLP. It also provided a Statement of Operating 
Activity As of 2/29/00. 

Criterion E: Agencies that wish to participate in the Annual Drive are required tn 
submit applications to the Board of Supervisors that include ail 
information that may be relevant to the criteria listed in the Section 

As stated earlier in this report, the City Attorney advised that the applications may be 
considered complete although clarification may have been necessary to conduct this 
review. 

All applicants provided documentation in their letters of application to the Board of 
Supervisors or confirmed by telephone that they are in compliance with the requirements 
of Section 16.93-2 which constitutes "certification." 

Therefore, all applicants were in compliance with Criterion E. 




City and County of San Francisco 

Meeting Minutes 

Finance and Labor Committee 

Members: Supervisors Leland lee. Sue Merman, Tom Ammiano 
Clerk: Mary Red 



City Hall 

1 Dr. Carlton B. 

Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, CA 

94102-4689 



Wednesday, April 26, 2000 



10:00 AM 
Regular Meeting 



City Hall, Room 263 



Members Present: Leland Y. Yee, Tom Ammiano. 
Members Absent: Sue Bierman. 



Meeting Convened 

The meeting convened at 10:09 a.m. 

991963 [Conditional Use Authorization for Video Store| 
Supervisors Yee, Ammiano 

Ordinance amending Planning Code by amending each of the Neighborhood Commercial District Zoning 
Control Tables in Article 7 to require video stores to obtain conditional use authorization in all neighborhood 
commercial districts and adding Section 790.135 to define "video store"; adopting findings pursuant to 
Planning Code Section 101.1. 

(Adds Section 790.135; amends Article 7 Tables.) 

(4/1 1/00, City Planning Resolution No. 15019 adopted April 6, 2000, recommending approval of the proposed 

amendments to the City Planning Code dated 1/10/00. Determined to be categorically exempt from 

environmental review as a General Rule Exclusion pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines.) 

10/18/99, ASSIGNED UNDER 30 DAY RULE to Transportation and Land Use Committee, expires on 1 1/17/1999. 10 22 99 Transmuted 

to Planning for Hearing and Recommendation 

2/7/00, SUBSTITUTED. Submitted by Supervisor Yee in Board, bearing same title. 

2/7/00, ASSIGNED UNDER 30 DAY RULE to Transportation and Land Use Committee, expires on 3/8/2000. 3/16/00 Transmitted to 

Planning tor Hearing and Recommendation. 

4/12/00, TRANSFERRED to Finance and Labor Committee. Transferred pursuant to memo dated April 6, 2000. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Supervisor Yee: Paul Rosetter, City Planning Department: Chris Dittenhafer, 
Council of District Merchants; Rae Doyle. Greater West Portal: Elizabeth M., Miraloma Park: Garrett 
Jenkins, North of Market Planning Coalition. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 
Absent: 1 - Bierman 



DOCUMENTS DEP" 

MAY 1 2000 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



City and County of San Francisco 



fnnt.Jat 12:49 I'M i>« 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



ipnl 20. 211011 



000524 (Authorizing expenditure of fundi estimated at S4.210.000 for emergency repair ol S.ui Joaquin Pipeline 
No. 3| 

Resolution authorizing expenditure of funds lor emergency repair of corrosion in San Joaquin Pipeline No I 
of the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct (Public I tilities Commission) 

(Fiscal impact ) 

3/22/Do. RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance«nd I abor Committee 

i 19/00, CON1 ini I D Continued to April 26, 2000. 

Continued to May 3, 2t)tit). at request oj department 

CONTINUED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



000676 (Neighborhood Park General Obligation Bond Issuance] 

Resolution providing for the issuance of not to exceed SI 10,000.000 aggregate principal amount ol < ity and 
County of San Francisco General Obligation Bonds (Neighborhood Recreation and Park Facilities 
Improvement Bonds, 2000), including the issuance of an initial scries thereof in the aggregate principal 
amount of not to exceed $6,180,000 and designated as the Cit) and ( < unity of San Francisco General 
Obligation Bonds (Neighborhood Recreation and Park facilities Improvement Bonds, 2000), Series 200 
authorizing the execution, authentication and registration of said Bonds; providing for the le\\ of a tax to pay 
the principal and interest thereof; providing for the appointment of depositories and other agents for said 
Bonds; providing for the establishment of accounts related thereto; ratifj mg certain actions previously taken, 
and granting general authority to City officials to tak.- necessary actions in connection with the authorization, 
issuance, sale and delivery of said Bonds t Mayi 
4 12/00, REC1 IVED \sn KSSIGNI Dtol inanceand I abor Committee 

Heard in Committee Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst, Supervisor ><■ he:. Deputy City 

Attorney; Sarah Hollenbeek. Mayor's Office of Public Finance, Supervisor Ammiano, Elizabeth Goldstein, 
Director, Operation and Planning, Recreation and Park Department. Dr Phil Day, Chancellor, S.F City 
College. Bob Delesso. S.F. Zoo. Supervisor Ammiano 
RECOMMENDF.D by the following \ote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



000679 (Neighborhood Park General Obligation Bond Sale| 

Resolution authorizing and directing the sale of not to exceed S6. 180.000 City and County of San Francisco 
General Obligation Bonds (Neighborhood Recreation and Park Facilities Improvement Bonds, 2000), Series 
2000C; prescribing the form and terms of said Bonds; authorizing the execution, authentication and 
registration of said Bonds; providing for the appointment of depositories and other agents for said Bonds; 
providing for the establishment of accounts related thereto; approving the forms of official notice of sale and 
notice of intention to sell Bonds; directing the publication of the notice of intention to sell Bonds; approving 
the form and execution of the official statement relating thereto; approving the form of the continuing 
disclosure certificate; approving the modifications to documents; ratifying certain actions previously taken; 
and granting general authority to City officials to take necessary actions in connection with the authonzation, 
issuance, sale and delivery of said Bonds. (Mayor) 
4/12/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED lo Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst: Supervisor Yee. Dave Sanchez, Deputy City 
Attorney; Sarah Hollenbeek. Mayor's Office of Public Finance: Supervisor Ammiano; Elizabeth Golds:, 
Director. Operation and Planning. Recreation and Park Department; Dr Phil Day. Chancellor. S.F. City 
College; Bob Delesso, S.F. Zoo; Supervisor Ammiano. Amendment of the Whole 
AMENDED. AN AMENDMENT OF THE \\ HOLE BEARING SAME TITLE. 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 12:48 PM on iT 00 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



April 26, 2000 



RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 
Absent: 1 - Bierman 



000677 [Community College General Obligation Bond Sale] 

Resolution authorizing and directing the sale of not to exceed $29,605,000 City and County of San Francisco 
General Obligation Bonds (Educational Facilities Bonds, 1997 - Community College District), Series 2000A; 
prescribing the form and terms of said Bonds; authorizing the execution, authentication and registration of said 
Bonds; providing for the appointment of depositories and other agents for said Bonds; providing for the 
establishment of accounts related thereto; approving the forms of official notice of sale and notice of intention 
to sell Bonds; directing the publication of the notice of intention to sell Bonds; approving the form and 
execution of the official statement relating thereto; approving the form of the continuing disclosure certificate; 
approving modifications to documents; ratifying certain actions previously taken; and granting general 
authority to City officials to take necessary actions in connection with the authorization, issuance, sale and 
delivery of said Bonds. (Mayor) 

4/12/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Supervisor Yee; Dave Sanchez, Deputy City 
Attorney; Sarah Hollenbeck, Mayor's Office of Public Finance; Supervisor Ammiano; Elizabeth Goldstein, 
Director, Operation and Planning, Recreation and Park Department; Dr. Phil Day. Chancellor, S.F. Cin- 
College; Bob Delesso. S.F. Zoo; Supervisor Ammiano. Amendment of the Whole. 
AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING SAME TITLE. 
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



000678 [Zoo General Obligation Bond Sale| 

Resolution authorizing and directing the sale of not to exceed $17,440,000 City and County of San Francisco 
General Obligation Bonds (Zoo Facilities Bonds, 1997), Series 2000B; prescribing the form and terms of said 
Bonds; authorizing the execution, authentication and registration of said Bonds; providing for the appointment 
of depositories and other agents for said Bonds; providing for the establishment of accounts related thereto; 
approving the forms of official notice of sale and notice of intention to sell Bonds; directing the publication of 
the notice of intention to sell Bonds; approving the form and execution of the official statement relating 
thereto; approving the form of the continuing disclosure certificate; approving modifications to documents: 
ratifying certain actions previously taken; and granting general authority to City officials to take necessary 
actions in connection with the authorization, issuance, sale and delivery of said Bonds. (Mayor) 
4/12/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Supervisor Yee; Daw Sanchez. Deputy City 
Attorney; Sarah Hollenbeck, Mayor's Office of Public Finance; Supervisor Ammiano; Elizabeth Goldstein. 
Director, Operation and Planning. Recreation and Park Department; Dr. Phil Day. Chancellor. S F City 
College; Bob Delesso, S.F Zoo; Supervisor Ammiano. Amendment of the Whole. 
AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING S \MF. TITLE. 
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



City and County of San Francisco 



Primed ol I2-.4SPM <m 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



Ipril 26, 20011 



000432 |Requirements Suspended for Certain Transient Merchants! 
Supervisor Leno 

Ordinance amending Article 3 of Pari III of die San Francisco Municipal (ode. by amending Section 250. 
excepting certain transient merchants that operate at Moscone (enter or the Mill (iraham Civic Auditorium and 
agree to comply with all the City and County of San Francisco's rules from the licensing and fee requirements 
otherwise applicable to transient merchants under Article 3; and enabling enforcement by means of citation. 

(Amends Section 250.) 

3 13 00. ASSIGNED UNDER 30 DAY Kl I I to Finance and Labor C unaniU ec wtpirei o I 

Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst, Marti Paschal. Supervisor L fad 

Moerschbaecher, Director. SF. Convention Fat. times Supervisor immiano Susan Leal. Treasurer. Richard 

Sullivan; Supervisor Yee. Continued to May J 2000 

CONTINUED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



000433 (Amendment to Definition of Transient Merchant - Temporar) Business] 
Supervisor Leno 

Ordinance amending Article 3 of Pan III of the San Francisco Municipal Code, by amending Section 25 1, 
defining the term temporary business to mean a business conducted for less than seven days, and excluding 

pumpkin sellers from the definition of transit merchant. 

(Amends Section 251.) 

: 00, ASSIGNED UNDER 30 DAY Kl md Labor Commitlec. oq 

Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst; Marti Paschal. Supervisor Jack 

Moerschbaecher. Director. SF. Convention Facilities, Supervisor immiano, Susan Leal. Treasurer; Richard 
Sullivan; Supervisor Yee Continued to Ma) 3, 2000 
CONTINUED by the following Note: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 
Absent: 1 - Bierman 



000434 [Requirements Suspended for Certain Transient Merchants] 
Supervisor Leno 

Ordinance amending Article 3 of Part 111 of the San Francisco Municipal Code, by amending Section 252. 
excepting certain transient merchants that operate at Moscone Center or the Bill Graham Auditorium and agree 
to comply with all the City and County of San Francisco's rules from the requirement that they apply for a 
license under Article 3. 

(Amends Section 252.) 

3 1 3 00. ASSIGNED UNDER 30 DAY RULE to Finance and Labor Committee. Rq 8/2000. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers; Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst; Marti Paschal. Supervisor Leno's Aide; Jack 

Moerschbaecher. Director. SF Convention Facilities; Supervisor Ammiano. Susan Leal. Treasurer. Richard 

Sullivan; Supervisor Yee. Continued to Ma) 3, 2000. 

CONTINUED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 12:*SPM on 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



April 26, 2000 



000435 [Fee Reduction During Suspension Period) 
Supervisor Leno 

Ordinance amending Article 3 of Part III of the San Francisco Municipal Code, by amending Section 253. 
reducing the fees payable by transient merchants during the suspension period. 

(Amends Section 253.) 

3/1 3/00, ASSIGNED UNDER 30 DAY RULE to Finance and Labor Committee, expires on 4/12/2000. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Marti Paschal, Supervisor Leno's Aide: Jack 

Moerschbaecher, Director, S.F. Convention Facilities: Supervisor Ammiano; Susan Leal, Treasurer; Richard 

Sullivan; Supervisor Yee. Continued to May 3, 2000. 

CONTINUED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



000436 [Requirements Suspended for Certain Transient Merchants Tax Return Filing) 
Supervisor Leno 

Ordinance amending Article 3 of Part III of the San Francisco Municipal Code, by amending Section 254. 
exempting those certain transient merchants that operate at Moscone Center or the Bill Graham Civic 
Auditorium and agree to comply with all the City and County of San Francisco's rules from the tax return 
filing requirement otherwise applicable to transient merchants under Article 3; and exempting all other 
transient merchants from such tax return filing requirement during the suspension period. 

(Amends Section 254.) 

3/13/00, ASSIGNED UNDER 30 DAY RULE to Finance and Labor Committee, expires on 4/1 2/2000. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst; Marti Paschal. Supervisor Leno's Aide; Jack 

Moerschbaecher, Director, S.F. Convention Facilities; Supervisor Ammiano; Susan Leal, Treasurer; Richard 

Sullivan; Supervisor Yee. Continued to May 3, 2000. 

CONTINUED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



000437 [Requirements Suspended for Certain Transient Merchantsl 
Supervisor Leno 

Ordinance amending Article 3 of Part III of the San Francisco Municipal Code, by amending Section 255. 
exempting those certain transient merchants that operate at Moscone Center or the Bill Graham Civic 
Auditorium and agree to comply with all the City and County of San Francisco's rules from [he bonding 
requirement otherwise applicable to transient merchants under Article 3. 

(Amends Section 255.) 

3/13/00, ASSIGNED UNDER 30 DAY RULF to Finance and labor Committee, expires on 4/12/2 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst. Marti Paschal. Supervisor Leno's Aide: Jack 

Moerschbaecher, Director, S.F. Conventual Facilities; Supervisor Ammiano, Susan Leal. Treasurer; Richard 

Sullivan; Supervisor Yee Continued to May 3, 2000. 

CONTINUED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



City and County of San Francisco 



Pnnl.Jal /.V^/'W on i/27/00 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



\pril 26, 2000 



000438 |Elimination of Penalty During Suspension Period - Violation of Article 3] 
Supervisor I.eno 

Ordinance amending Article 3 of Part III of the San Francisco Municipal Code, by amending Section 257, 
eliminating the penalty on transient merchants that violate the provisions of Article 3 during the suspension 
period. 

(Amends Section 257.) 

3/13/00, A SSK, MI) UNDER 30 DAY RULE to Finance and Labor Committee, expires on 4 12/2000 

Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst, Marti Paschal, Supervisor Leno's lute. Jack 
Moerschbaecher, Director, S.F Convention Facilities, Supervisor Ammiano Susan Leal Treasurer. Richard 
Sullivan; Supervisor Yee ( Unturned to May 3, 2000 
CONTINUED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 
Absent: 1 - Bierman 



000439 [Requirements Suspended for Certain Transient Merchants - I icensing Requirements] 
Supervisor Leno 

Ordinance amending Article 3 of Part III of the San Francisco Municipal Code, by amending Section 258, 
exempting those certain transient merchants that operate at Fvfoscone Center or the Hill Graham Auditorium 
and agree to comply with all the City and County of San Francisco's rules from the licensing requirements 
otherwise applicable to transient merchants under Art' Je 3. 

(Amends Section 258.) 

3/13/00, ASSIGNED l MM K 30 DAY Kit I to I inance and Ubor Committee, ej 

Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst, Marti Paschal Supt ■ tide, Jack 

Moer.sclihaeciier. Director. S.F. Convention Facilities, Supervisor immiano Susan . rer Richard 

Sullivan; Supervisor Yee < bntinued to May 3, 2000 

CONTINUED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee. Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



000598 |Se\ver Replacement. 4th Street| 

Resolution approving the expenditure of funds for the emergency work to replace the structurally inadequate 
sewer on 4th Street between Bryant Street and Brannan Street - $542,540. ( Public I tihties Commission) 
4 4 00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Haney Rose. Budget Analyst; Christine Tang. Department of Public Works 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 
Absent: 1 - Bierman 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at i:.-4S PM on 4 27/W 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



April 26, 2000 



000606 [Acquisition of noise easements for the purpose of satisfying a part of State-mandated noise mitigation 
requirements) 

Resolution authorizing the acquisition of 1,764 noise easements located in the cities of Daly City (1,260) and 
San Bruno (490) and in unincorporated San Mateo County ( 14) with funding provided by the Airport's 
Commercial Paper Program up to a total of $34.2 million dollars. (Real Estate Department) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

4/4/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Tony DeLucchi. Department of Real Estate. 

RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



000609 [Acquisition of noise easements for the purpose of satisfying a part of State-mandated noise mitigation 
requirements! 

Resolution authorizing the acquisition of 3 18 noise easements from property owners located in the cities of 

Pacifica (70), Daly City (26), San Bruno (53), South San Francisco (155) and San Mateo County ( 14) as part 

of the Airport Master Plan Memorandum of Understanding between the Airport and its neighboring 

communities for 2000/2001. (Real Estate Department) 

4/4/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Tony DeLucchi. Department of Real Estate 

RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



000610 [Withdrawal of one property owner in San Mateo County from noise insulation program and delivery of 
quitclaim deed to said property owner] 

Resolution authorizing the conveyance of one ( 1 ) quitclaim deed to a property owner in the City of Pacifica to 
rescind a grant of easement (noise easement deed) previously acquired by San Francisco. (Real Estate 
Department) 

4/4/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Tony DeLucchi. Department of Real Estate. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 
Absent: 1 - Bierman 



000613 |Lease of property across the New Main Library for the Dept. of the Environment's Eco (enter which 
will provide public outreach and education on local environmental issues| 

Resolution authorizing a lease at 1212 Market Street for the Department of the Em ironmenl and accepting 
donations of materials and services. (Real Estate Department) 
4/5/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and I abor Committee 

Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst, Tony DeLucchi, Department of Real Estate, 
Bill Lee. City Administrator; Supervisor Ammiano, Mark Weston, Department of the Environment. Erin 
McGrath. Miner's Budget Office 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 1 2:4S I'M ,.n 4 r 00 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



tpnl 2t>, 2000 



000464 [Appropriating funds for the installation of an air conditioning system at the Chinatown Branch 
Library] 
Supervisors iNewsom, Becerril 

Ordinance appropriating $205,537 of Public library capital improvement Bond interest earnings to capital 
improvement projects (Branch library improvement - Chinatown renovations) tor the Public Library lor fiscal 
year 1999-2000. (Controllei ) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 
Heard in Committee Speakers Susan Hildreth, Acting City Librarian. James ( 'hafiu Peta It (afield, Milton 
Owyang; Supervisor Yee. 
RECOMMENDED by the follov»ine \..lc: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



000615 [Appropriating funds for books, computer equipment, software, electrical upgrades in the branch 
libraries and furniture/fixtures to support the Ingleside Branch] 

Ordinance appropriating $857,878 of Library Preservation funds for relocation of the Ingleside Branch 
Library, renovation of electrical systems in the branch libraries, and to purchase books, computer equipment 
and software, materials and supplies, furniture and fixtures and equipment for various library locations, for 
fiscal year 1999-2000. (Controller) 

4/5/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to I inanceand Labor Committee 

Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose. Budget Anal) U, Susan Hildreth. Acting ( 'ity Librarian. James 
Chafee; Peter Warfield; Ed Harrington. Controller. Supervisor ) •. . Amended to plat e $145,000 on n 
AMENDED. 

Ordinance appropriating SS57.S78 of Library Preservation Funds for relocation of the Ingleside Branch 
Library, renovation of electrical systems in the branch libraries, and to purchase books, computer equipment 
and software, materials and supplies, furniture and fixtures and equipment tor various library locations, for 
fiscal year 1999-2000; placing $145,000 on reserve. (Controller) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

RECOMMENDED \S VM ENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 
Absent: 1 - Bierman 



000623 [Prop J, Contracting Out Security Guard Services! 

Resolution concurring retroactively with the Controller's determination that security guard sen ices can 

practically be performed at the Bureaus of Engineering and Construction Management Offices at 1680 

Mission Street by private contractor for a lower cost than if the sen ices were performed by City employees. 

(Public Works Department) 

4 6 00, RECEP/ED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

Heard in Committee Speakers Ken Bruce. Budget Analyst 

RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 12:48 PM on 



Finance and Labor Committee Meeting Minutes April 26, 2000 



000716 [Possible Closure of Newcomer High School] 
Supervisor Yee 

Hearing to discuss the future of Newcomer High School, which the San Francisco Unified School District is 

considering to close down. 

4/17/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Supervisor Yee; Eddie Chin, Commissioner, Board of Education; Tim 

Tronson, S.F. Unitified School District; Fong Kwok Chun. PTA, Newcomer School; Mario Delgado; Frank 

Messenger, Teacher, Newcomer School; Jose Esponoza: Jennefer Berger, Partners in Learning; Jessica 

Young; Greg Collins, Teacher; Superxisor Ammiano. 

CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



ADJOURNMENT 

The meeting adjourned at 12:42 p.m. 



City and County of San Francisco » rr '"" J * '*<■ ' M ' "" J •' " "" 



25¥ 



[Budget Analyst Report] 

Susan Horn 

Main Library-Govt. Doc. Section 



CITY AND COUNTY 




OF SAN FRANCISCO 



^BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 
FAX (415) 252-0461 



Apnl2a ^CUMENTSDEPT. 
APR 2 4 2000 



TO: ^Finance and Labor Committee 

FROM: Budget Analyst 

• FRANCISCO 

SUBJECT: .April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting p UBLIC LIBRARY 



Item 2 - File 00-0524 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance and Labor Committee at its 
meeting of April 19, 2000. 



Department: 



Item: 



Comment: 



Recommendation: 



Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 
Hetch Hetchy Water and Power 

Resolution authorizing the expenditure of funds estim 

at $4,210,000 for emergency repair of corrosion in the San 

Joaquin Pipeline No. 3 of the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct. 

Mr. Larry Klein of the PUC has requested that the 
proposed resolution be continued for one u 

Continue this resolution for one week as requested by 
Mr. Klein. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Items 3 and 4 - Files 00-0676 and 00-0679 



Department: 
Items: 



Recreation and Park Department (RPD) 

Item 3. File No. 00-0676 : Resolution providing for the 

issuance of not to exceed $110,000,000 aggregate 
principal amount of City and County of San Francisco 
General Obligation Bonds (Neighborhood Recreation and 
Park Facilities Improvement Bonds, 2000), including the 
issuance of an initial Beries thereof in the aggregate 
principal amount of not to exceed $6,180,000 and 
designated as the City and County of San Francisco 
General Obligation Bonds (Neighborhood Recreation and 
Park Facilities Improvement Bonds. 2000), Series 2000C; 
authorizing the execution, authentication and registration 
of said bonds; providing for the levy of a tax to pay the 
principal and interest thereof; providing for the 
appointment of depositories and other agencies for said 
bonds; providing for the establishment of accounts rel.: 
thereto; ratifying certain actions previously taken; and 
granting general authority to City officials to take 
necessary actions in connection with the authorization, 
issuance, and sale and delivery of said bonds. 

Item 4. File No. 00-0679 : Resolution authorizing and 
directing the sale of not to exceed $6,180,000 City and 
County of San Francisco General Obligation Bonds 
(Neighborhood Recreation and Park Facilr 
Improvement Bonds. 2000), Series 2000C, which would be 
the initial series of the bonds; prescribing the form and 
terms of said bonds; providing for the appointment of 
depositories and their agencies for said bonds; providing 
for the establishment of accounts related thereto; 
approving the forms of Official Notice of Sale and Notice 
of Intention to Sell bonds; directing the publication of the 
Notice of Intention to Sell Bonds: approving the form and 
execution of the Official Statement relating thereto; 
approving the form of the Continuing Disclosure 
Certificate: approving modifications to documents: 
ratifying certain actions previously taken: and granting 
general authority to City officials to take necessary 
actions in connection with the authorization, issuance, 
sale and deliverv of said bonds. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Amounts: 



Amounts for the issuance and sale of the Neighborhood 
Recreation and Park Facilities Improvement Bonds, 2000 
covered by the subject resolutions are as follows: 



Description 


Amount 


Item 3, File 00-0676 

Authorization for Issuance of 

General Obligation Neighborhood Recreation 

and Park Facilities Improvement Bonds 


$110,000,000 


Item 4, File 00-0679 

Authorization for Sale of the Initial Series of the 
above General Obligation Neighborhood 
Recreation and Park Facilities 
Improvement Bonds (Series 2000C) 


$6,180,000 



Description: 



In March of 2000, San Francisco voters approved the 
issuance of $110,000,000 in General Obligation Bonds, 
known as the Neighborhood Recreation and Park 
Facilities Improvement Bonds, to provide for the 
acquisition, construction and/or reconstruction of 
neighborhood recreation and park facilities and 
properties. Item 3. File No. 00-0676 would establish the 
general terms and procedures for the issuance of the 
Neighborhood Recreation and Park Facilities 
Improvements Bonds, and Item 4, File No. 00-0679 would 
provide specific approval to sell the initial series of said 
bonds, in an aggregate principal amount of up to 
S6. 180,000 (Series 2000C). 



Item 3. File 00-0676 

The proposed resolution would authorize the issuano 
an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $110,000,000 
of Neighborhood Recreation and Park Facilities 
Improvement Bonds, 2000, for the acquisition, 
construction and/or reconstruction of neighborhood 
recreation and park facilities and properties. 

General provisions regarding the proposed issuance vi' the 
Neighborhood Recreation and Park Facilities 
Improvement Bonds are as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

3 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committt e 

April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



The bonds shall be divided into series, as authorized 
by the Board of Supervi 

An initial series of Bonds in the aggregate principal 
amount of up to $6,180,000 (Series 2000C) would be 
created and established (see below. Item 4, File 00- 
0679, for the specific provisions of the said series). 

Property taxes collected to redeem the bonds would be 
deposited in the special funds account, which would be 
created specifically for this purp< 

The proceeds of the sale of the bonds would be 
deposited into a Project Account, maintained by the 
City Treasurer, and would be applied exclusively to 
the projects approved under the subject Bond. 

The City Treasurer may appoint fiscal agents or 
financial institutions to distribute bond interest and 
principal payments. 

The Board of Supervisors may. by resolution, 
authorize and direct the sale of any series of bonds to 
provide for the defeasance of su:h series bonds. 



Item 4. File No. 00-0679 

The proposed resolution would authorize and direct the 
sale of the initial series of the Neighborhood Recreation 
and Park Facilities Improvement Bonds. 2000 (Series 
2000C) in a principal amount not to exceed S6. 180,000. 
The proposed resolution would also approve the form and 
terms of the documents and official notices related to the 
sale, and authorize City officials to take various actions 
necessary to carry out the sale of bonds. 

The Recreation and Park Department proposes to expend 
the estimated $6. 180.000 in bond proceeds as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

4 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Project 


Design 

1 


Construction 
/Acquisition 


Total 


Acquired Natural .Areas 




8500,000 


8500,000 


Aptos Playground 


8160,000 




160,000 


Chinese Rec Center 


800,000 




800,000 


Dog Parks 


150,000 


150,000 


300,000 


Erosion Control 


100,000 


400,000 


500.000 


Esprit Park 




800,000 


800,000 


Helen Wills Clubhouse 


81.744 




81,744 


Mission Playground 








Clubhouse (ADA) 




200,000 


200,000 


North Beach Clubhouse 




400,000 


400,000 


Randall Museum 


650,000 


700,000 


1,350,000 


Variety of Improvements of 


75,000 


525,000 


600,000 


Disability Access 








Youngbloods Soccer Field 




450.000 


450,000 


Total Project Costs 


$2,016,744 


$4,125,000 


$6,141,744 


Cost of Issuing Bonds 




38.256 


Total Costs 




$6,180,000 



Attachment I to this report, provided by the Recreation 
and Park Department, contains a description for each of 
these projects. 

The proposed resolution pertains to the sale of $6,180,000 
in Series 2000C General Obligation Bonds. Upon sale of 
the subject bonds, the remaining amount of unsold bonds 
would equal $103,820,000. 

General provisions regarding the sale of the bonds would 
be as follows: 

• The sale of the bonds is tentatively scheduled for May 
31, 2000. 

• Under the proposed resolution, the bonds would be 
sold at an interest rate that could not exceed 12 
percent per year and will mature no later than June 
15, 2026, or in 26 years. 

• An official statement describing the proposed bonds to 
be issued is referenced in the proposed resolution for 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

5 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meet in •: 



approval by the Board of Supervisors. The official 
statement would be available to all potential bidders 
for the bonds. 

Bonds would be awarded to the bidder whose bid 
represents the lowest interest cost to the City. 



Comments: 1. Including Item 5, File 00-0677 and Item 6, File 00-0678 

of this report to the Finance and Labor Committee, the 
Mayor's Office proposes to sell General Obligation Bonds 
in a total amount not to exceed $53,225,000, in May of 
2000. Series 2000 C in the amount of $6,180,000 is the 
subject this resolution. 

2. Under this proposed resolution (Item 1. Pile 00-0679), 
the annual interest rate for the (6, 180.000 in the initial 
Series 2000 C of the Neighborhood Recreation and Park 
Facilities Improvement Bonds could not exceed 12 
percent. However, Ms. Sarah Hollenbeck of the M.: 
Office reports that if the bond i in May of 2000, 
the bonds would probably be sold at an overall effe 
interest rate of approximately 5.91 percent. 

3. According to Ms. Hollenbeck. the proposed sale of 
Series 2000 C in the amount of $6,180,000 would result in 
total interest costs of $4,528,687, and total debt service of 
approximately $10,708,687 ($6,180,000 in principal costs 
plus $4,528,687 in interest) over the 20-year life of the 
bonds. The average d> e payment per year would 
be approximately $535,434. 

4. Ms. Hollenbeck states that the proposed sale of the 
total of $53,225,000 in General Obligation Bonds, as 
noted in Comment No. 1 above, would result in total 
interest costs of $38,982,538, and total debt service of 
approximately S92. 207.538 ($53,225,000 in principal costs 
plus $38,982,538 in interest) over the 20-year life of the 
bonds. The average debt service payment per year would 
be approximately $4,610,376. 

5. According to Ms. Ann Carey of the Controller's Office, 
the proposed Series 2000 C sale of the Neighborhood 
Recreation and Park Facilities Improvement Bonds in the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

6 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



amount of $6,180,000 would result in an increase in the 
Property Tax rate of approximately $0.00076 per $100 of 
assessed value. At that rate, the owner of a single family 
residence assessed at $400,000 would pay $2.98 in 
additional Property Taxes annually due to the issuance of 
these bonds. 

6. Ms. Carey states that the proposed sale of the total of 
$53,225,000 in General Obligation Bonds, as noted in 
Comment No. 1 above, would result in an increase in the 
Property Tax rate of approximately $0.00653 per $100 of 
assessed value. At that rate, the owner of a single family 
residence assessed at $400,000 would pay $25.66 in 
additional Property Taxes annually due to the issuance of 
these bonds. 

7. As stated in Attachment II, provided by the Mayor's 
Office, Ms. Hollenbeck states that the City's General 
Obligation bonding capacity, which is equal to three 
percent of the City's net assessed property value, is 
$2,114,446,916 based on a net assessed valuation of 
$70,481,563,870 for Fiscal Year 1999-2000. Ms. 
Hollenbeck states that, as of April 15, 2000, the City had 
outstanding $ 903,500,000 aggregate principal amount of 
General Obligation Bonds, not including the subject 
Bonds of this resolution, which is equal to 1.28 percent of 
the net assessed valuation. Therefore, Ms. Hollenbeck 
advises that the City's current available General 
Obligation bonding capacity is approximately 
$1,210,946,916. The proposed sale of bonds in the total 
amount of $53,225,000 in General Obligation Bonds 
would reduce the City's bonding capacity from 
$1,210,946,916 to approximately $1,157,721,916. Ms. 
Hollenbeck advises that the City's bonding capacity varies 
from time to time as bonds are repaid and new bonds 
issued. 

8. Ms. Hollenbeck states that the cost of selling 
$6,180,000 in Series 2000 C Neighborhood Recreation and 
Park Facilities Improvement Bonds, including lees for 
private bond counsel, financial advisors, financial 
printing, and the services of the Mayor's Office of Public 
Finance and City Attorney, are expected to be 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

7 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



approximately $38,256. or approximately 0.6 percent of 
the total value of the bonds issued. 

9. Approval of the proposed resolution would authorize 
the sale of up to $6,180,000 in General Obligation 
Neighborhood Recreation and Park Facilities 
Improvement Bonds (Series 2000 C). However, all future 
expenditure appropriations of the bond proceeds, would 
be subject to separate approval by the Board of 
Supervisors through supplemental appropriations 
ordinances. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



ity and County of San Francisco 



Attachment I 
Page 1 of 2 

Recreation and Park Department 




DATE: April 20, 2000 

TO: Emiiie Neumann, Budget Analyst's Office 

FROM: Deborah Learner, Park Planner, Recreation and Park Department QO 



RE: 



Spnng Bond Sale - Project Descriptions 



1 . Acquire Natural Areas - $500,000 - Acquire natural areas at Palou Phelps and Edgehiil 

2. Aptos Playground - S160.000: For masterpianning and design for park improvements; 
will include consideration of penmeter improvements, infrastructure and recreational 
needs. 

3. Chinese Recreation Center - $300,000: For design. The recreation center's intenor 
and exterior will need to be either completely refurnished or possibly reconstructed. 
Tne building was reported to have a high seismic rating. These funds will be 
augmented by a State allocation for improvements to the play area. 

4. Dog Parks - $150,000: For the design and improvement of various existing dog parks 
as well as potential new sites. Funding will support community process as well as 
plans and specifications. 

5. Erosion Control- $100,000 design/S9, 000,000 construction: Severe erosion problems 
exist at numerous sites including West Sunset Playground, Noe Courts, Koshland 
Park, Buena Vista Park. Stem Grove and Glen Park. 

6. Espnt Park - $800,000: Acquisition of developed park owned by private corporation. 
Funds will be augmented by Open Space funds previously appropriated for this 
purpose. 

7. Helen Wills Clubhouse - $81,744: For design. For improvements to the clubhouse, 
additional funds are available through the Open Space Program for construction of the 
play area to augment facility improvements. Also an UPPAR (Federal grant funding) 
application has been submitted to construct the clubhouse improvements. 



Mission Playground Clubhouse ADA - $200,000: For construction of ADA 
improvements in the dubhcuse. This work scope will be added the project scooethat 
has been funded through Open Space to improve ADA access to the adjacent pool. 



:!_aren Lodge, Golden Gate Park 

1 Stanyan Stre«t 

n Francisco, CA 94117-1398 



FAX: (415)665-7130 
Phone: (415) 831-2700 



Attachment I 
Page 2 of - 



9. North Beach Playground Clubhouse - $400,000: Constructjcn for improvements to the 
clubhouse. Plans are included an as alternate in the pool project funded through Open 
Space that is currently out to bid. 

10. Randall Museum - 5650,000: Design to address plans and specifications tc continue to 
implement the Museum's Master Plan for exterior and interior improvements. 
$700,000: Construction to complete funding for die Phase I extenor lancscape and 
ADA improvements. 

11. ADA /Courts, paths and sidewalks - S75.0C0: For design to provide ADA access and 
pathway improvements to address safety hazards at numerous facilities. 

$525,000: Fcr construction to implement ADA and pathway improvements. 

1 2. Youngblood - $450,000 Construction of synthetic turf soccer field, ADA improvements. 



seni>3 tone: saie-neumann4-2O-0C 



10 



Attachment II 



OFFICE Or THE MAYOR 

CITY HALL 

DR. CARLTON B . GOODLETT PL AC 

SAX FRANCISCO, C A 9 4 1 : : 



MEMORANDUM 



TO: EMEJE NEUMANN 

FROM: KAREN R3BLZ 

SARAK KOLLENBECK 

SUBJECT: GENERAL OBLIGATION 30NDS, SERIES 2CCQA, 3, AND C 

DATE: :- 19/(X 



The City's General Obligation bonding capacity, which is equal to three percent :: the Civ's - j - 
assessed property value, is S2, 114,446,916 based on a net assessed valuation of 570 481 563 87C for 
Fiscal Year 1999-CG. As of April 15, 2CCC, the City had outstanding S9G5,5OO,CC0 aggregate orindoal 
amount of General Obiigadon Bonds, not including the subject Bends of this resoiudon. which ; - 
equai to 1.2S percent of the net assessed valuadon Therefore, the City's current available General 
Obiigadon bonding capacity is approximately S1JZ 10,946,9 16. Tne procosed sale of bonds in the 
total amount of S53,225,CCC would reduce the City's bending capacity from SI ''10946 916 to 
approximately SI, 157,721,916. However, the Gry's bonding capacity varies from time to time as 
Denes are reoaid and new bonds issued 



11 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 5 - File 00-0677 

Department: 

Item: 



Community College District 

Resolution authorizing and directing the sale of not to 
exceed $29,605,000 City and County of San Francisco 
General Obligation Bonds (Educational Facilities Bonds, 
1997 - Community College District), Series 2000A; 
prescribing the form and terms of said bonds; authorizing 
the execution, authentication and registration of said 
bonds; providing for the appointmenl of depositories and 
(it her agents for said bonds; providing for the establishment 
of accounts related thereto; approving the forms of officiaJ 
Notice of Sale and Notice of Intention to Sell Bonds; 
directing the publication of the Notice of Intention to Sell 
Bonds: approving the form and execution of the Official 
Statement relating thereto; approving the form of the 
Continuing Disclosure Certificate; approving modifications 
to documents; ratifying certain actum.- previously taken: 
and granting general authority to City officials to take 
necessary actions in connection with the authorization. 
issuance, sale and deliv id bonds. 



Amount: 



Description: 



Series Description Amount 

2000A Educational Facilities Bonds 

Community College District $29,605,000 

In June of 1997, San Francisco voters approved the 
issuance of $140,000,000 in General Obligation Bonds for 
educational facilities for the San Francisco Unified School 
District and the Community College District. Of the 
$140,000,000, $50,000,000 was to provide funding for the 
acquisition. construction. and/or reconstruction of 
educational facilities for the Community College District. 
On June 29, 1999. the City issued the first series of bonds 
on behalf of the Community College District in the amount 
of $20,395,000 (Educational Facilities Bonds, 198 
Community College District). Series 1999A. The remaining 
authorized amount equals $29,605,000 ($50,000,000 less 
$20,395,000). 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

12 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Bond proceeds from Series 1999A in 
$20,460, 150 1 were appropriated by 
Supervisors as follows (File 99-1573): 



the 
the 



amount 
Board 



of 
of 



Land acquisition to be used for 




campuses for the Community College District in 




Chinatown and Mission District 


$9,095,793 


Health and safety upgrades 


2,745,715 


Disability access improvements 


250,457 


Renovation projects 


2,003,834 


Technology, network, and electrical 




upgrades 


5,967,427 


Childcare facilities 


250,000 


Bond issuance costs 


79,211 


Debt service costs 


67.713 


Total 


$20,460,150 



The Community College District proposes to expend bond 
proceeds from the proposed subject sale of $29,605,000 in 
Series 2000A bonds as follows: 



Land acquisition to be used for 






campuses for the Community College 






District in Chinatown and Mission 






District 


$804,207 




Health and safety upgrades 


8,251,341 




Disability access improvements 


741,760 




Renovation projects 


7,427,791 




Technology, network, and electrical 






upgrades 


10,476,544 




Childcare facilities 


1,725,983 




Subtotal, Construction Fund 




$29,427,626 


Bond issuance costs 




177.374 


Total 




$29,605,000 



Attachment I, provided by the Community CoDege District, 
provides a description of the above projects. 

The proposed resolution pertains to the sale of $29,605,000 
in Series 2000A General Obligation Bonds, which 



1 According to Ms. Sarah Hollenbeck of the Mayor's Office of Public Finance, the City sold General 
Obligation bonds totaling $20,395,000, and actual bond proceeds, including interest earnings, totaled 
$20,460,150 (File No. 99-1573). 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

13 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

represents the remaining authorized amount of the General 
Obligation Bonds approved by the electorate in June of 
1997 for the Community College District. 

General provisions regarding the sale of the bonds would be 
as fcl'.ows: 

• The sale of the bonds is tentatively scheduled for May 
31, 2000. 

• Under the proposed resolution, the bonds would be sold 
at an interest rate which could not exceed 12 percent per 
year and will mature no later than June 15. 2026, or 26 
years. 

• Property Taxes collected to redeem the bonds would be 
deposited in the special funds account which would be 
created specifically for this purpose. 

• An official statement describing the proposed bonds to 
be issued is referenced in the proposed resolution for 
approval by the Board of Supervisors. The official 
statement would be available to all potential bidders for 
the bonds. 

• Bonds would be awarded to thf bidder whose bid 
represents the lowest interest cost to the I 

• The City Treasurer may appoint fiscal agents or 
financial institutions to distribute bond interest or 
principal payments. 

Comments: 1. Including Item 4. File 00-0679, and Item 6. File 00-0678 

of this report to the Finance and Labor Committee, the 
Mayor's Office pr< \ sell General Obligation Bon 

a total amount not to exceed $53,225,000. in May of 2000. 
Series 2000A in the amount of $29,605,000 is the subject of 
this resolution. 

2. Under the proposed resolution, the annual interest rate 
for the bonds could not exceed 12 percent. However, Ms. 
Sarah Hollenbeck of the Mayor's Office reports that if the 
bonds are sold in May of 2000. the bonds would probably be 
sold at an overall effective interest rate of approximately 

I percent. 

3. According to Ms. Hollenbeck. the proposed sale of Series 
2000A in the amount of $29,605,000 would result in total 
interest costs of approximately S21.682.026. and total debt 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

14 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



service of approximately $51,287,026 ($29,605,000 in 
principal costs plus S21.682.026 interest) over the 20-year 
life of the bonds. The average debt service payment per 
year would be approximately 82.564,351. 

4. Ms. Hollenbeck states that the proposed sale of the total 
of $53,225,000 in General Obligation Bonds, as noted in 
Comment No. 1 above, would result in total interest costs of 
approximately $38,982,538, and total debt service of 
approximately $92,207,538 ($53,225,000 in principal costs 
plus $38,982,538 in interest) over the 20-year life of the 
bonds. The average debt service pajnaient per year would be 
approximately $4,610,376. 

5. According to Ms. Ann Carey of the Controller's Office, the 
proposed Series 2000A sale of Educational Facilities Bonds, 
Community College District, in the amount of $29,605,000 
would result in an increase in the Property Tax rate of 
approximately $0.00363 per $100 of assessed value. At 
that rate, the owner of a single family residence assessed at 
$400,000 would pay $14.27 in additional Property Taxes 
annually due to the issuance of these bonds. 

6. Ms. Carey states that the proposed sale of the total 
$53,225,000 in General Obligation Bonds, as noted in 
Comment No. 1 above would result in an increase in the 
Property Tax rate of approximately $0.00653 per $100 of 
assessed value. At that rate, the owner of a single family 
residence assessed at $400,000 would pay $25.66 in 
additional Property Taxes annually due to the issuance of 
these bonds. 

7. Ms. Hollenbeck states that the cost of selling $29,605,000 
in Series 2000A Education Facilities Bonds, Community 
College District, including fees for private bond counsel, 
financial advisors, financial printing, and the services of 
the Mayor's Office of Public Finance and City Attorney, are 
expected to be approximately $177,374, or approximately 
0.6 percent of the total value of the bonds issued. 

8. As stated in Attachment II, provided by the Mayor's 
Office, Ms. Hollenbeck states that the City's General 
Obligation bonding capacity, which is equal to three 
percent of the City's nel assessed property value, is 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

15 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 26. 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



82,114,446.916 based on a net assessed valuation of 
$70,481,563,870 for Fiscal Year L999-2000. Ms. Hollenbeck 
states that, as of April 15. 2000. the City had outstanding 
$903,500,000 aggregate principal amount of General 
Obligation Bonds, not including the subject Bonds of this 
resolution, which is equal to 1.28 percent of the net 
assessed valuation of $70,481,563,870. Therefore. Ms. 
Hollenbeck advises that the City's current available 
General Obligation bonding capacity is approximately 
SI. 2 10, 946.916. The proposed sale of bonds in the total 
amount of $53,225,000 would reduce the City's bonding 
capacity from $1,210,946,916 to approximately 
$1,157,721,916. However. Ma Hollenbeck advises that the 
City's bonding capacity varies from time to time as bonds 
are repaid and new bonds are issued. 

9. Approval of the proposed resolution would authorize the 
sale of up to $29,605,000 in Educational Facilities Bonds, 
Community College District, Series 2000A. However, all 
future expenditure appropriations of the bond proceeds 
would be subject to separate approval by the Board of 
Supervisors through supplemental appropriation 
ordinances. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

16 




Attachment I 
Page 1 of 2 



VICE CHANCELLOR OF FINANCE Qc ADMINISTRATIO N 

33 COUCH STREET • SAN FRANCISCO. CA MI03-I2U . 415. 2«:.2ZZ9 . r AX 415. 241 .23^ 



To: Sevenn CampbejL Budget Analyst's Office 
From: Peter Goldstein, Vice Chancellor Finance & Administration 
Re: Community College District's Proposed Use of Bond Proceeds 
Date: April 20, 2000 



In response to your request I am providing additional information related to the 
Community College District's proposed uses of bond proceeds. The attached 
spreadsheet shows the breakout of proposed spending by category and by site. 
The narrative below provides further detail on the proposed uses of this funding. 

The largest portion of the College's proposed expenditures is for continuing the 
construction of the computer network with associated electrical upgrades. A total 
of $1 0,476,544 will be spent in this area for items such as building wiring, 
network cabling, and electrical panels. When completed, the College expects to 
exceed its promise to the public to create a network that connects 50% of the 
classrooms in buildings the College owns as well as 25% of the classrooms in 
buildings the College leases. 

The second largest area of activity for this bond sale is health and safety 
projects. A total of $8,251 ,341 will be spent for items such as replacing forty to 
eighty year old windows and doors, repainng plumbing, upgrading ventilation 
systems, replacing outdated fire-life safety systems, and replacing roof 
coverings. When these projects are completed the College will have addressed 
all of the major health and safety issues in the buildings it owns. 

The third largest area of activity for this bond sale is renovation projects. A total 
of $7,427,791 will be spent for items such as replacement of worn out floor and 
ceiling coverings, repainting of exterior and interior walls, improvements to 
existing heating and ventilation systems, and reconfiguring existing space for 
more efficient use. While considerable progress will be made in this area, it is far 
short of the amount needed to upgrade the more than 1.1 million square feet of 
space in all College-owned facilities. 



BOARD OF TRUSTEES 
OR. ANITA CRICK, 'RESIDEr.'" • ROOI« T ' VMNI, Vl« R*»IO«NT • 3« naTaliC BC1C 
X09EXT E ec«TON • JAMES MlSKC. M»YO, II • OOOKL t BODIS • JWBENCt *ONO 

OR. PWILIP R OAY. .».. CHANCE 0» 

-^t^. 17 -lC-)~i_H-.— VI ^_>J_IH 



Pape 2 ot 'z 



The fourth area of activity for this bond sale is childcare facilities. A total of 
$1,725,983 will be spent to improve the existing childcare facility located at the 
Phelan Campus. The money will be spent on new lighting, heating and plumbing 
systems, as well as new interior finishes and play structures. The College 
upgraded the childcare facility at its John Adams Campus with proceeds from the 
first bond sale. 

The final area of activity for this bond sale is in the land acquisition category. 
The $804,207 earmarked for this item is not for acquiring any additional property. 
Instead it is needed to pay for the buyout provision contained in the lease of a 
commercial occupant of the property the College acquired for its new Mission 
Campus. 

Thank you for your assistance and do not hesitate to contact me at 241.2229 if 
you need any additional information. 



Cc: Dr. Phillip Day 
Karen Ribble 



18 






19' 



,4:53 CCSF PUBLIC FINANCE 



ALiacnneuL n 



TEL: 415 554 4864 



OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 

CITY KALL 

1 DR. CARLTON B . GOOD LETT PLACE 

SAN FRANCISCO, C A 94102 



MEMORANDUM 



TO: 
FROM: 



EMTLIE NEUMANN 

KAREN RUBLE 
SARAH HOLLENBECK 



SUBJECT: GENERAL OBUGATIION BONDS. SERIES 2000A, B. AND C 
DATE; 04/19/00 



The City's General Obligation bonding capacity, which is equal to chree percent of die Gty's net 
assessed property value, is 52,114,446,916 based on a net assessed valuation of $70,481363,870 for 
Fiscal Year 1999-00. As of April 15, 200U, rhe City had outstanding $903,500,000 aggregate principal 
amount of General Obligation Bonds, not including die sublet Bonds of this resolution, which is 
equal to 1.28 percent of die net assessed valuation. T.erefore, die City's current available General 
Obligation bonding capacity is approximately $1,210,946,916. The proposed sale of bends in the 
total amount of $53,225,000 would reduce die City's bonding capacity from $1,210,946,916 to 
approximately $1,157,721,916. However, die City's bonding capacity varies from rime to time as 
bonds are repaid and new bonds issued. 



18a 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committi 
April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Commit 1 1 ■• 



Item 6 - File 00-0678 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 



San Francisco Zoo 

Resolution authorizing and directing the sale of not to 
exceed $17,440,000 City and County of San Francisco 
General Obligation Bonds (Zoo Facilities Bond- I 
Series 2000B; prescribing the form and terms of said bonds; 
authorizing the execution, authentication and registration 
of said bonds; providing for the appointment of depositories 
and other agents for said bonds; providing for the 
establishment of accounts related thereto: approving the 
forms of official Notice of Sale and Notice of Intention to 
Sell Bonds; directing the publication of the Notice of 
Intention to Sell Bonds: approving the form and execution 
of the Official Statement relating thereto; approving the 
form of the Continuing Disclosure Certificate: approving 
modifications to documents; ratifying certain actions 
previously taken; and granting general authority to City 
officials to take necessary actions in connection with the 
authorization, issuance, sale, and delivery of said bonds. 



Series 
2000B 



Description 
Zoo Facilities Bond 



Amount 
slT 140,000 



Description: 



In June of 1997, San Francisco voters approved the 
issuance of $48,000,000 in General Obligation bonds to 
provide funding for the acquisition, construction, and/or 
reconstruction of facilities for the San Francisco Zoo. On 
June 29, 1999, the City issued the first series of bonds on 
behalf of the San Francisco Zoo in the amount of 
S16.S45.000 (Zoo Facilities Bonds. 1997). Series 1999C. The 
remaining authorized amount of Zoo Facilities Bonds equal 
$31,155,000 ($48,000,000 less $16,845,000). 

Proceeds from the sale of the first series of Zoo Facilities 
bonds totaled S 16.898.895. The Board of Supervisors 
appropriated funds in that amount in October of 1999 (File 
No. 99-1912) for various Zoo renovation and construction 
projects, as shown in Attachment I. provided by the Zoo, 

Proceeds from the proposed sale of the second series of Zoo 
Facilities bonds, which are the subject of this resolution, 
totaling S17.440.000. would be used as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

19 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Entrance and Zoo Street 
Madagascar Facility 
Quarantine and Holding Facility 
Subtotal, Construction Funds 
Cost of Issuance 
Total 



$13,114,827 
1,974,695 
2.246.811 



$17,336,333 

103.667 

$17,440,000 



Attachments I and II, provided by the Zoo, contain 
additional budget details and a description of each of these 
projects. 

The proposed resolution pertains to the sale of $17,440,000 
in Series 2000B General Obligation Bonds. Upon sale of 
the subject bonds, the remaining amount of unsold bonds 
would equal $13,715,000. 

General provisions regarding the sale of the bonds would be 
as follows: 



Comments: 



• The sale of the bonds is tentatively scheduled for May 
31, 2000. 

• Under the proposed resolution, the bonds would be sold 
at an interest rate which could not exceed 12 percent per 
year and would mature no later than June 15, 2026, or 
26 years. 

• Property Taxes collected to redeem the bonds would be 
deposited in the special funds account which would be 
created specifically for this purpose. 

• An official statement describing the proposed bonds to 
be issued is referenced in the proposed resolution for 
approval by the Board of Supervisors. The official 
statement would be available to all potential bidders for 
the bonds. 

• Bonds would be awarded to the bidder whose bid 
represents the lowest interest cost to the City. 

• The City Treasurer may appoint fiscal agents or 
financial institutions to distribute bond interesl or 
principal payments. 

1. Including Item 4, File 00-0679, and Item 5, File OO-OCTT 
of this report to the Finance and Labor Committoo. the 
Mayor's Office proposes to sell General Obligation Bonds in 
a total amount not to exc 1 $53,225,000, in May of 2000. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

20 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Series 2000B in the amount of $17,440,000 is the subject of 

this resolution. 

2. Under the proposed resolution, the annual interest rate 
for the bonds could not exceed 12 percent. However, Ms. 
Sarah Hollenbeck of the Mayor's Office reports that, if the 
bonds are sold m May of 2000, the bonds would probably In- 
sold at an overall effective interest rate of approximately 
5.91 percent. 

3. According to Ms. Hollenbeck, the proposed sale of S- 
2000B in the amount of $17,440,000 would result in total 
interest costs of approximately $12,771,824, and total debt 
service of approximately $30,211,82 140,000 plus 
$12,771,824) "\cr the 20-year life of the bond.-. Average 
debl service payment per year would be approximately 
$1,510,591. 

1. Ms. Hollenbeck states that the proposed sale of the total 

of $53,225,000 in General Obligation bonds, as noted in 
Comment No. 1 above, would result in total interest co.-' 
approximately $38,982,538. and total debt service of 
approximately $92,207,538 000 in principal costs 

plus $38,982,538 in intere-- he 20-year life of the 

bonds. The average debt service payment per year would be 
approximately $4,610,376. 

5. According to Ms. Ann Carey of the Controller's Office, the 
proposed Series 2000B sale of Zoo Facilities Bonds in the 
amount of $17,440,000 would result in an increase in the 
Property Tax rate of approximately $0.00214 per $100 of 
assessed value. At that rate, the owner of a single family- 
residence assessed at $400,000 would pay $8.41 in 
additional Property Taxes annually due to the issuance of 
these bonds. 

6. Ms. Carey state- thai the proposed sale of the total 
$53,225,000 in General Obligation Bonds, as noted in 
Comment No. 1 above, would result in an increase in the 
Property Tax rate of approximately $0.00653 per $100 of 
assessed value. At that rate, the owner of a single family 
residence assessed at $400,000 would pay S25.66 in 
additional Property Taxes annually due to the issuance of 
these bonds. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

21 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



7. Ms. Hollenbeck states that the cost of selling $17,440,000 
Series 2000B Zoo Facilities Bonds, including fees for 
private bond counsel, financial advisors, financial printing, 
and the services of the Mayor's Office of Public Finance and 
City Attorney, are expected to be approximately $103,677, 
or 0.6 percent of the total value of the bonds issued. 

8. As stated in Attachment III, provided by the Mayor's 
Office, Ms. Hollenbeck states that the City's General 
Obligation bonding capacity, which is equal to three 
percent of the City's net assessed property value, is 
$2,114,446,916 based on a net assessed valuation of 
$70,481,563,870 for Fiscal Year 1999-2000. Ms. Hollenbeck 
states that, as of April 15. 2000. the City had outstanding 
$903,500,000 aggregate principal amount of General 
Obligation Bonds, not including the subject Bonds of this 
resolution, which is equal to 1.28 percent of the net 
assessed valuation of $70,481,563,870. Therefore, Ms. 
Hollenbeck advises that the City's current available 
General Obligation bonding capacity is approximately 
$1,210,946,916. The proposed sale of bonds in the total 
amount of $53,225,000 would reduce the City's bonding 
capacity from $1,210,946,916 to approximately 
$1,157,721,916. However, Ms. Hollenbeck advises that the 
City's available bonding capacity varies from time to time 
as bonds are repaid and new bonds are issued. 

9. Approval of the proposed resolution would authorize the 
sale of up to $17,440,000 in General Obhgation Bonds 
(Series 2000B). However, all future expenditure 
appropriations of the bond proceeds would be subject to 
separate approval by the Board of Supervisors through 
supplemental appropriation ordinances. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

11 



Attachment I 



o >. 



„ < 



& u 




§ 5 



a t 



s 

l 
I] 



1 f 



ai 




E o -u 




0J O K 


-. 


J-> C E 


- 


•H re -"1 




3 X 




<y to o 




C to u 




rl<H & 




i—l c_ 




-c re 




o c 




.c o cu 




H X X 




<u o 




• )-l i-> 




o re 




O "O 




or o> 




-WW 




O 4-1 u 




<r to C 




<r C — . 




. o o 




r- >-i 




— ^ c. 








X o 




■ — ( J-J V-i 




re C re 




3 : 




cr 




- 




• U 




to o n 




"C O CG 




<u c c 




1 




y o u. 




O CM 




}-i i— i y 


— 


CX</> -r-l 


_ 


i— i 




" CJ 




P re 3 




,C — 




X! - 




■_ 




O J-i O 




o a> 




c ,c y 




CSI 4J U 




re in 




Vj VjU 




'— 




<4J -O 




r^ 




to vc to 




ft) v£>- 




M . •_ 




3(00 




J-> o >. 




rlH a 




fl»2 




c 




Q) 00 4) 




PLrH jr 








O 2 




D C 




— - - 




ai 




*-» = a: 




O BD c 




0) 4-> tH 








O O J-i • 




Vj y O r- 




— y vo 


t 


Vj y o 


i 


X - 




rex m 


I 


— — ~ cr 




O O c — 




H: re </> 


■ 



23 



Attachment II 

04/20/00 10:56 FAI 415 753 7248 SF ZO O PROGRAM MGMT ©002 



A. Entry and Zoo Street 

Visitors will be greeted by a new main entrance located along the Great Highway, siightlv 
to the south of the old Fleishhacker Pool. It will include a multi-use area with bus and shuttle 
drop-offs; a bicycle storage area, a disabled accessible parking area, and new visitor ticketing, 
service, and retail areas. It will also provide an immediate view of the animals in the African 
Savanna exhibit. The proposed parking area could be part of a new joint-use site with a new city 
tertiary treatment plant for recycled water located underneath A new central pedestrian spine 
will unite the discovery trail loops of each of the major exhibitions. Planned for a peak visitor dav 
of 25,000 persons, this tree-lined spine will provide a new linear landmark for the Zoo and an 
orientation and a sense-of-place in a restored native coastal marine California landscaoe for 
visitors. The spine will include expanded food services, gift shops, information kiosks, directional 
signage, ticketing, medical services, rentals, tramway access, and resrroom facilities. Adjoinine 
this new green space corridor, there will be space for individual and large group picnicking and 
areas for animal demonstrations, community and cultural events, and people watching. 



F. Madagascar 

This exhibit will display the unique lemur, reptiles, and other fauna of Madagascar. There 
will be interactive devices that will showcase the specific projects and conservation efforts being 
carried out by the San Francisco Zoo in Madagascar. 



L Service, Warehouse, and Quarantine Facilities 

The efficient operation of the Zoo requires adequate support facilities, located in areas 
that facilitate clear communication among all staff. This phase includes die building or rebuilding 
of some important service areas: faculties for animal quarantine, food storage facilities for animal 
diets and visitor restaurants, and retail storage and horticultural support facilities. 



24 



APR. -19' 



,4:53 CCSF PUBLIC FINANCE 



TEL: 4 15 554 4864 



OFFICE Or THE MAYOR 

CITY HALL 

1 DR. CARLTON 5 . GOODLETT PLACE 

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 



MEMORANDUM 



TO: 
FROM: 



EMILIE NEUMANN 

KAREN R1BBLE 
SARAH HOLLENBECK 



SUBJECT: GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS. SERIES 2000A B. AMD C 
DATE: 04/19/00 



The City's General Obligation bunding capacity, which is equal to chree percent of die Gry's net 
assessed property value, is $2, 1 14,446,916 based on a net assessed valuation of $70,481363,870 for 
Fiscal Year 1999-00 As of April 15, 2000, the City had outstanding $903,500,000 aggregate principal 
amount of General Obligation Bonds, nor including die sub|ccr Bonas of this resoluuon, which is 
equal to 1.28 percent of die net assessed valuation. Therefore, die City's current available General 
Obligation bonding capacity is approximately $1,210,946,9:6 "Die proposed sale of bonds in the 
total amount of $53,225,000 would reduce die Gry's bonding capacity from $1,210,946,916 to 
approximately $1,157,721,916 However, die Gry's bonding capacity varies from rime to time as 
bonds are repaid and new bonds issued. 



25 



Memo to Finance and Labor Commit tee 

April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Items 7 -14 - Files 00-0432. 00-0433. 00-0434. 00-0435. 00-0436. 00-0437. 00- 
0438. 00-0439 

Department: Treasurer /Tax Collector 

Items: File 00-0432: Ordinance amending Part III. Article 

3, Section 250 of the San Francisco Municipal Code, 
to except certain transient merchants, that operate 
at Moscone Center or the Bill Graham Civic 
Auditorium and agree to comply with all the « 
and County of San Francisco's rules, from the 
licensing and fee requirements otherwise 
applicable to transient merchants under Article 3; 
and enabling enforcement by means of citation. 

File 00-0433: Ordinance amending Part III. Ar 
3, Section 251 of the San Francisco Municipal Code 
to define the term temporary business to mean a 
business conducted for less than seven days and 
excluding pumpkin sellers from the definition of 
transient merchant. 

File 00-0434: Ordinance amending Part III, Article 
3, Section 252 of the San Francisco Municipal Code 
to except certain transient merchants, that operate 
at Moscone Center or the Bill Graham Civic 
Auditorium and agree to comply with all the * 
and County of San Francisco's rules, from the 
requirement that they apply for a license under 
Article 3. 

File 00-0435: Ordinance amending Part III. Article 
3. Section 253 of the San Francisco Municipal Code 
to reduce the fees payable by transient merchants 
during the suspension period described below. 

File 00-00436: Ordinance amending Part III. 
Article 3. Section 254 of the San Francisco 
Municipal Code to exempt those certain transient 
merchants, that operate at Moscone Center or the 
Bill Graham Civic Auditorium and agree to comply 
with all the City and County of San Francisco's 
rules, from the tax return fifing requirement 
otherwise applicable to transient merchants under 
Article 3 and to exempt all other transient 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

26 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

merchants from such tax return filing requirements 
during the suspension period. 

File 00-0437: Ordinance amending Part III, Article 
3. Section 255 of the San Francisco Municipal Code 
to exempt those certain transient merchants, that 
operate at Moscone Center or the Bill Graham 
Civic Auditorium and agree to comply with all the 
City and County of San Francisco's rules, from the 
bonding requirement otherwise applicable to 
transient merchants under Article 3. 

File 00-0438: Ordinance amending Part III, Article 
3, Section 257 of the San Francisco Municipal Code 
to eliminate the penalty on transient merchants 
that violate the provisions of Article 3 during the 
suspension period. 

File 00-0439: Ordinance amending Part III, Article 
3, Section 258 of the San Francisco Municipal Code 
to exempt those certain transient merchants, that 
operate at Moscone Center or the Bill Graham 
Civic Auditorium and agree to comply with all the 
City and County of San Francisco's rules, from the 
licensing requirements otherwise applicable to 
transient merchants under Article 3. 

Description: The eight proposed ordinances would address City 

regulations concerning transient merchants, which 
are currently defined in Part III, Article 3, Section 
251 of the City's Administrative Code (See File 00- 
0433 below). Currently, the City (1) requires 
transient merchants to obtain quarterly licenses 
from the City; (2) requires transient merchants to 
pay $500 quarterly license fees to the City, (3) 
requires all transient merchants to obtain a $5,000 
financial bond, (4) requires transient merchants to 
file quarterly reports with the City; (5) imposes a 
Gross Receipts Tax of ten percent on transient 
merchant's gross sales which exceed $5,000, and 
imposes certain criminal sanctions for failure to 
comply with these provisions. All of the prop*' 
ordinances would amend existing Sections of the 
City's Administrative Code, except one of 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

11 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

proposed ordinances (File 00-0439). which would 
add a new Section 258 to the Administrative Code. 

File 00-0439: Under this new proposed Section 258, 
those transient merchants who lease space at 
either Moscone Center or the Bill Graham Civic 
Auditorium, and meet the requirements of the City 
by entering into a License Agreement with San 
Francisco Convention Facilities, would be exempt 
from (1) applying for a transient merchant license, 
(2) obtaining a transient merchant license, or (3) 
obtaining a financial bond, and therefore would be 
exempt from all the transient merchant 
requirements, including the transient merchants 
quarterly license fee. as established in the CY 
Administrative Code. All of these new pr 
would be in effect during a proposed suspension 
period, which would extend from the ei 
of this ordinance to 30 days he Board of 

Supervisors repeals the ordinal] 

File 00-00432: Currently. Section 250 of Article 3 of 
the City's Administrative Code requires all 
transient merchants to obtain a license from the 
City. The proposed ordinance would amend this 
requirement to exempt those transient merchants 
covered by the new Section 258 discussed above, 
that lease space at Moscone Center or Bill Graham 
Civic Auditorium. In addition, the proposed 
ordinance would require that such license 
provisions for other tiansient merchants be 
enforced by the issuance of administrative 
citations. 

File 00-00433: Currently. Section 251 of Article 3 of 
the City's Administrative Code defines transient 
merchants as any person, firm or corporation who 
(a) engages in a temporary business of selling and 
delivering goods, wares and merchandise, other 
than food or food products, within the City, and (b) 
hires, leases, uses or occupies any building, 
structure, shop. tent, railroad boxcar, boat or room 
in any hotel, motel, auto court or apartment for the 
exhibition and sale of such goods, wares and 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

28 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

merchandise. This transient merchant definition 
specifically excludes (a) persons, firms or 
corporations who exhibit samples only for the 
purpose of securing orders for future deliver}-, (b) 
sales at public auctions regulated by the provisions 
of the Police Code and Part III of the Municipal 
Code and (c) the sale of Christmas trees. The 
proposed ordinance would also exclude the sale of 
pumpkins from these transient merchant 
requirements. In addition, the proposed ordinance 
would define '"temporary business" to mean a 
business conducted for less than seven days in any 
calendar year and would require that any business 
conducted for seven days or more in any calendar 
year obtain a Business Tax Registration 
Certificate. 

File 00-0434: Currently. Section 252 of Article 3 of 
the City's Administrative Code contains the 
requirements for applying for a transient merchant 
license. The proposed ordinance would make non- 
substantive clarifying changes to these existing 
requirements. 

File 00-0435: Currently. Section 253 of Article 3 of 
the City's Administrative Code requires that all 
transient merchants pay (1) a minimum quarterly 
fee of $500 for a license and (2) a Gross Receipts 
Tax of ten percent of gross receipts in excess of 
S5.000 per quarter. The proposed ordinance would 
(1) reduce the transient merchant quarterly license 
fee from $500 to $150, a reduction of $350. or 70 
percent, and (2) eliminate the Gross Receipts Tax 
for transient merchants, who lease space at 
locations other than Moscone Center and the Bill 
Graham Civic Auditorium, during the suspension 
period. As noted previously, under the new Section 
258 (File No. 900-043 c Ji transient merchants who 
lease space at the Moscone Center and the Bill 
Graham Civic Auditorium are exempt from the 
transient merchant requirements, including the 
transient merchant quarterly been Uso, the 

suspension period would extend from the 
dan- of the new Section 258 (File 00-0439) to 30 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

29 



Memo to Finance and Labor Commit I 

April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Commute Meeting 

days after the Board of Supervisors repeals that 
ordinance. 

File 00-0436: Currently. Section 254 of Article 3 of 
the City's Administrative Code (1) requ:: 
transient merchant^ to file quarterly reports with 
the Tax Collector's Office containing the amount of 
gross n ad (2) authorizes the Tax 

Collector- Office to examine the records of these 
transient merchant- to verify the accuracy of the 
quarterly reports and/or I tain the amount of 

fees and ta: I to the City. The prop' 

ordinance would eliminate the requirement that 
transient merchant- file these quarterly 

reports or pay such taxes to the City during I 
suspension period, which i bove. 

File 00-0437: Currently. S I Article 3 of 

the City's Administrativi ■ - that be! 

the quarterly h I by the City, all 

transient merchants must fill bond with 

the Tax Collector's Ofl itial injur 

or losses that may !><• su-tained. The proposed 
ordinance would amend Section 255 to provide that 
only those transient merchants that are require d 
obtain a quarterly license be required the 

$5,000 bond. Since under the proposed 
amendments, transienl merchants at Mo-cone 
Center and Bill Graham Civic Auditorium would be 
exempt from the licensing requirements, those 
transient merchant- would also be exempt from 
these bonding requirement- 

File 00-0438: Currently. Section 257 of Article 3 of 
the City's Administrative Code state? that any 
person that violates any of the provisions of Article 
3. as described above, would be guilty of a 
misdemeanor and upon conviction would be 
punished by a fine of not more than S500 or 
imprisonment for not more than six months or 
both. The proposed ordinance would eliminate 
these criminal sanctions during the suspension 
period. As noted above (File 00-0432). the 
provisions of Article 3 would be enforced by the 
issuance of citations. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

30 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Comments: 1. Ms. Susan Leal, the City Treasurer, advises that 

Mr. Jack Moerschbaecher, the City's Convention 
Facilities Director and Mr. John Marks. President 
of the San Francisco's Convention and Visitors 
Bureau approached the Tax Collector's Office to 
propose the requested changes to the City's 
Administrative Code regarding excluding transient 
merchants at Moscone Center and Bill Graham 
Civic Auditorium from the City's transient 
merchants requirements. As indicated in a letter 
dated October 12, 1999, from Mr. Moerschbaecher 
to Ms. Susan Leal (Attachment I). Mr. 
Moerschbaecher reports that Convention Center 
customers have expressed concern about 
application of the transient merchant tax to 
merchants who have exhibits at trade shows and 
conventions. According to Mr. Moerschbaecher, the 
San Francisco Convention and Visitors Bureau and 
Moscone Center "have received numerous 
communications (from Convention Center 
customers) protesting the potential application of 
this tax to their shows". Mr. Moershcbaecher 
states that, if 17 Convention Center customers who 
have expressed concern about paying the tax were 
to transfer their business to other cities, the City 
would lose an estimated $4,300,000 in Convention 
Center revenues. Additionally, Mr. Moershcbaecher 
states that a survey of 9 cities, including 7 
California cities (Anaheim, Burbank, Fresno, Los 
Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, and Santa Clara). 
Portland, Oregon, and Las Vegas, Nevada, shows 
that none of the 9 cities impose a transient 
merchant tax. 

2. Under the proposed ordinance (File 00-0439). a 
transient merchant would be exempt from these 
regulations, if the merchant leases space at either 
Moscone Center or Bill Graham Civic Auditorium 
and enters into a License Agreement for Pan 
Francisco Convention Facilities. According to Mr. 
Moerschbaecher, the existing License Agreements 
are required to be signed by all show producers who 
occupy space at Moscone Center or Hill Graham 
Civic Auditorium. Mr. Moerschbaecher advises thai 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

31 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

this Licens : ! obligates such show- 

producers to comply with all City government rules 
and requirements, as well as the Operator's Rules 
and Regulations, the San Francisco Convention 
Facilities Public Safety and Fire Management Plan 
and the Handbook for Meeting Planners and Show 
Managers. Mr. Moerschbaecher reports that in FY 
1999-2000 the City is estimated to receive 
000 from the Li< reement fees at 

Moscone Center and Bill Graham Civic 
Auditorium. According to Mr Moerschbaecher, 
such revenues are deposited into the Convention 
Facilities Fund and arc used (a) to make debt 
service payments on Mo>cone Center, which in FY 
1999-2000 are estimated I ' 000. and (b) 

to pay for th ting and maintenaj 

Moscone Center and Bill Graham Civic 
Auditorium, which in FY 1999-2000 are estimated 
to be $15,151,000. The Li greemenl I 

ool the sul posed ordinance and 

would remain unchanged. As noted previou 
under the proposed ordinance th jient 

merchant quarterly . aid apply only to 

transient merchants Leasing space at locations 
other than Moscone Center and Bill Graham Civic 
Auditorium, and would be reduced from $500 per 
quarter to SI 50 per quarter (Files No. 00-0435 and 
00-0 I 

3. Mr. Doug Neilson of the Convention and Visitors 
Bureau reports that the subject transient merchant 
tax has been "sporadically enforced, at best, for 
many years". Additionally, Mr. Nielsoi that 
convention and trade show organizers have opposed 
the transient merchant tax. as shown in the 
attached memorandum (Attachment II). 

4. As noted above, under the proposed ordinance 
(File 00-0433). a transient merchant would be 
defined as a business conducted for less than seven 
days in any calendar year and would require that 
any business conducted for seven days or more in 
any calendar year obtain a Business Tax 
Registration Certificate. Ms. Leal advises that the 
reduction of the $500 license fee to the proposed 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

32 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



$150 license fee is consistent with the average cost 
for the City's Business Tax Registration Certificate. 
Ms. Leal also advises that the existing transient 
merchant regulations which require payment of a 
ten percent Gross Receipts Tax on receipts of over 
$5,000 are proposed to be eliminated because these 
regulations are extremely labor intensive and 
practically unenforceable for the Tax Collector's 
Office. 

5. The Treasurer/Tax Collector reports that in FY 
1998-99, the Tax Collector's Office collected a total 
of $41,234 from quarterly license fees and Gross 
Receipts Taxes from transient merchants, and that, 
as of March 31. 2000, the Tax Collector's Office has 
received approximately $16,000 from transient 
merchant fees and taxes for FY 1999-2000. Based 
on revenues for the first 9 months of FY 1999-2000. 
the Budget Analyst projects a total of 
approximately $21,333 on an annualized basis. 
According to the Treasurer/Tax Collector, prior to 
FY 1998-99. the City did not aggressively enforce 
the provisions of Article 3 regarding transient 
merchants. As a result, the Treasurer/Tax Collector 
estimates that the City's collections from transient 
merchants prior to FY 1998-99 were approximately 
$3,000 annually. 

6. Approval of the proposed ordinances would (a) 
exempt the transient merchants who lease space at 
Moscone Center or Bill Graham Civic Auditorium 
from the existing transient merchant license 
requirements, including quarterly license fees, (b) 
eliminate the Gross Receipts tax, and (c) reduce the 
quarterly license fee from the current $500 per 
quarter to $150 per quarter for transient 
merchants who lease space at locations other than 
Moscone Center and the Bill Graham Civic 
Auditorium. The Treasurer/Tax Collector estimates 
that the City would receive a total of approximately 
$1,500 annually (from an estimated 10 transient 
merchant.-, who occupy space at locations other 
than the Moscone Center or Bill Graham Civic 
Auditorium, times $150). The Treasurer/Tax 
Collector expects that the City will rece 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

33 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

additional quarterly license fee revenues, in 
addition to the estimated $1,500 annual revenues 
noted above, due to increased ability to collect such 
fees resulting from the automation of the collection 
system. The Treasurer/Tax Collector is not able to 
provide an estimate of the additional revenues at 
this time. 

7. As noted in Attachment III, provided by the 
Treasurer, the transient merchant revenues to the 
City in FY 1997-9* 020, in FY 1998-99 
were $41,234.38. and in FY 1999-2000, as of March 
31. 2000. are $16,006.31 As noted above, under 
the proposed ordinances, projected revenues in FY" 
2000-2001 would be approximately SI. 500 
annually, plus any additional revenues resulting 
from automation of the collection system. 

In FY 2000-2001 transient merchant revenues 
could be reduced by approximately $19,833 
annually, from the Budget Analyst's projected FY 
1999-2000 revenues of $21,333 (Comment No. 5) to 
approximately $1,500. However, the Budget 
Analyst notes that data on transient merchant 
revenues, including quarterly license fees and 
Gross Receipts historically limited, and 

therefore, actual reductions in revenues resulting 
from the proposed ordinances could vary from the 
projected amount. 

8. According to the Treasurer/Tax Collector, the 
Tax Collector's Office expects to reallocate staff 
time to other more at revenue collection 
activities, such as unregistered business 
compliance activity, if less staff time is required to 
enforce the transient merchant requirements, 
including reporting and paying tax on gross 

eipts. As stated in Attachment III. although the 
Tax Collector's Office does not have specific 
dedicated staff for transient merchant activities. 

iff time and costs, resulting from Tax Collector 
Investigators enforcing the existing transient 
merchant ordinances. Licensing staff issuing 
transient merchant licenses. and Cashiers 
processing the payments, would be reduced. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

34 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Additionally, Attachment III states that "it is 
anticipated that we will recognize further cost 
savings and enhanced collections due to the 
redeployment of investigators, who will be able to 
concentrate on potentially more lucrative 
investigation activities". 

9. As stated in File 00-0432, the proposed ordinance 
would require that the provision to obtain a 
transient merchant license would be enforced by 
administrative citation. According to Mr.George 
Putris, Tax Administrator, the proposed 
administrative citation program is currently being 
developed. Mr. Putris states that actual fines have 
not yet been determined but that the proposed 
administrative citation program would be a minor 
source of revenue to the City. Mr. Putris states 
that, under the proposed administrative citation 
program, Tax Collector Investigators would be 
authorized to issue citations and handle them 
administratively. 

Summary: Currently, the City requires all transient 

merchants to (a) pay $500 quarterly license fees to 
the City, (b) obtain a $5,000 financial bond, (c) file 
quarterly reports with the City, (d) pay a Gross 
Receipts Tax of 10 percent on transient merchant's 
gross sales which exceed $5,000. Additionally, the 
Administrative Code imposes certain criminal 
sanctions for failure to comply with these 
provisions. 

Approval of the proposed ordinances would exempt 
transient merchants who lease space at either the 
Moscone Center or Bill Graham Civic Auditorium 
from all the transient merchant requirements 
noted above, including the quarterly License fee. 
Additionally, for transient merchants who l< 
space at locations other than the Moscone ( 'finer or 
Bill Graham Civic Auditorium, approval of the 
proposed ordinances would (a) reduce the quarterly 
license fee payable by the transient merchants to 
the City from $500 per quarter to $150 per quarter, 
ib) eliminate the Gross Ri ceipts Tax, (c) eliminate 
the requirement thai transienl merchants file 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

35 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

April 26, 2000 Finance and Labor Committee Meet in- 
quarterly reports with the Tax Collector's Office 
containing the amount of gross receipts received, 
and (d) provide for enforcement of the 
Administrative Code provisions governing 
transient merchants by the issuance of 
administrative citations. 

All of these new provisions would be in effect 
during a proposed suspension period, which would 
extend from the effective date of this ordinance to 
30 days after the Board of Supervisors repeals the 
ordinance. 

According to the Treasurer/Tax Collector, in FY 
1997-1998, the City collected $3,020 in transient 
merchant quarterly license fees and Gross Receipts 
raxes. In FY 1998-1999 the City collected 
and in FY 1999-2000. as of March 31, 2000, the 
City has collected $16,006 in such fees and taxes. 
I'nder the proposed ordinances, the City would 
only collect the quarterly license fees from 
transient merchants wh<> lease space at locations 
other than Moscone Center and Bill Graham Civic 
Auditorium. The Treasurer Tax Collector estimates 
that annual revenues from such fees would be 
approximately $1,500, plus additional revenues 
resulting from automation of the quarterly license 
fee collection system. The Budget Analyst projects 
FY 2000-2001 transient merchant revenues of 
1.333, based on revenues of $16,006 collected in 
the first 9 months of the fiscal year. Therefore, 
upon approval of the proposed ordinan 
transient merchant revenues from quarterly license 
fees could be reduced by approximately $19,833 
annually, from the Budget Analyst's projected FY 
1999-2000 revenues ; .proximately 

si. 500. However, the Budget Analyst notes that 
data on transient merchant revenues, including 
quarterly license fees and Gross R